Thread: Purgatory: It's not my fault I'm fat and broke! Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000597

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
On UK TV last night the Panorama program reported on the growing problem of people getting into debt above the breathing line and the conflict between lending responsibly and the pursuit of profits by the High Street banks.

Now everybody likes to go "Boo Hiss!" at the High Street Banks but it got me wondering. Just because I can borrow £125,000, simply because I can't resist borrowing £125,000 ... does that make it the Bank's fault if I keep raiding the candy store?

Likewise it troubles me that some obese people have started looking beyond their minds and mouths to the name on the packet for someone to blame and sue for their own lack of self control. Are we creating a society of helpless victims who will do anything EXCEPT look at their own behaviours?

[ 02. January 2007, 19:37: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Do you think anyone chooses to be fat or broke?
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Come on Hatless ... I'm not talking about those who are fat because of a medical condition or those who are broke because they don't earn enough to live reasonably comfortably. I'm talking about people who are fat because they can't resist sticky buns and people who are broke because they can't resist spending to the limit (even if it's a credit limit).
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Fr Gregory, I thought you were a socialist? Recently, your posts remind me an awful lot of Melanie Philips (Peace Be Upon her).
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
So why do some people choose to have a sticky bun or go shopping again? Few people decide they want to be fat, few people decide they want to get rid of more money. So what's going on? Are these people defective in some way? Are they lacking something? Are they bad people?
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
Of course the final responsibility rests with the individual to behave sensibly. But there is still a moral onus on others not to exploit stupidity when they find it, isn't there?

I do think its worth exposing the behaviour of (e.g.) banks when they deliberately target tempting offers at people who's credit history shows them to be irresponsible, ignorant or unwary consumers.

Similarly, there's nothing wrong with food producers selling unhealthy food, and it's up to the consumer to moderate their diet. But when the producer tries to fool the unwary by pretending a product is healthier than it is, it's right to call them on it.

Both sides can be wrong at the same time, I think. And when one side is wrong out of stupidity or lack of expertise, while the other knows precisely what it is doing in pursuit of greater profit, then I know at which side I'd lay the most blame.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I'm a complex person Papio. Aren't we all? You can't reduce me to any political ideology. So, I support all the usually leftie causes ... (qualified) pacifism, internationalism, social justice, redistribution of wealth. However, on other issues I am markedly to the right ... eg., against abortion, in favour of private education (libertarian principle), insistence on personal responsibility. Sometimes the elements don't fit together too well ... but that's human as well.
 

---

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Now everybody likes to go "Boo Hiss!" at the High Street Banks but it got me wondering. Just because I can borrow £125,000, simply because I can't resist borrowing £125,000 ... does that make it the Bank's fault if I keep raiding the candy store?

---

I quite agree that taking a loan you cannot repay is irresponsible. It is also true, of course, that when a bank loans money to someone who cannot repay, they are acting irresponsibly.

In the USA, credit card companies have very agressively sought out bad credit risks, and then got our enlightened legislature to rewrite the bankruptcy laws to bail them out from the excess of their cupidity.

ISTM that something like joint responsibility applies to the problem of obesity. Individuals are responsible for their own waistline -- but a food industry that markets nothing but empty calories to children is as culpable for their actions as is a pimp for his. No-one has to buy -- but that does not excuse the seller, either.

--Tom Clune
 

---

Posted by PeaceFeet (# 11001) on :
 
It's a complex matter of education, societal influences and willpower. There are also 100gazillion individual cases and circumstances too. But, to risk sounding like a grumpy old man, the old maxim of can't afford, go without is no longer in use.

[rant]
I discovered the other day I have a credit card from Barclays but have never had an account with them, I never signed anything, I never agreed anything. They tell me it is good to have a massive spending power, just in case (at whatever horrible percentage the repayments are). I have a massive overdraft limit that my actual bank regularly increases in an effort to get me to spend.

I was disturbed to discover that many of my neighbours don't actually own their own cars. Credit is the word, it seems.
[/rant]

If I spent all that 'available' money on food, well, that would suggest something about Father Gregory's OP

[I must be a slow typer! 6 posts pipped me!]

[ 03. July 2006, 15:08: Message edited by: PeaceFeet ]
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I think that's quite reasonable tclune. I suppose we have to work on all fronts ... but don't you think that the current tendency is to absolve the individual from rersponsibility? Families who let their children eat what they want all the time are just as much the abusers as those who relentless hawk their poisons on TV.
 

---

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Few people decide they want to be fat, few people decide they want to get rid of more money. So what's going on?

---

Well, I suggest in a lot of cases, it comes down to a self-absorbed unwillingness to face up to the consequences of one's own actions. In the case of debt, some of the worst people for running up unmanageable debts are paid really very large salaries, they just can't (or won't) stop spending.

I wouldn't say this accounts for all people in debt, not by a long way, but it can't all be explained by saying that people in debt obviously don't earn enough to survive.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
My credit record is (for various reasons) absolutely appalling. It even repels Readers Digest, double glazing and timeshare salesmen.

I suppose the lesson is to screw things up then you will have little alternative than to live within one's means.

I do continue to have difficulty resisting the extra slice though.

[edit: spelling]

[ 03. July 2006, 15:13: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
There are probably as many reasons as there are fat, broke people.
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
The harder part is, IMO, to actually decide -- decide -- to become healthily trim, and debt-free, isn't it?

[ 03. July 2006, 15:21: Message edited by: The Riv ]
 

---

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
I think Tom has it -- the word "marketing" explains a large portion of the problems Fr. Gregory is referring to.

My father told me, many years ago, that when he was young, he was, by current standards, quite poor. Everyone around him was also poor. He was born in Mississippi in 1930. No one had money. He, in fact, considered himself well off, because he and his family had a solid, well built house, they always had enough food. The fact that he only got one pair of new shoes or trousers a year, no matter how much he grew that year, didn't matter to him. When the shoes no longer fit, he went barefoot. If the trousers were too short, oh, well. He had a warm bed and a full belly. Life was good.

But the reason, he said, that life was good, the reason he could see it as good, was that he didn't have television or magazines telling him how bad he had it, and telling him what he should aspire to. The images in his mind were built from what he saw around him, not what advertising and marketing people had created to put there.

The advertising and marketing industry spends many hundreds of billions of dollars every year with the express purpose of making people dissatisfied. They spend billions to make you decide that there is something wrong with your life, something wrong with you, if you don't have X or Y. And they do a terrific job of it.

So people buy larger and larger houses, filled with more and more stuff, because they have been persuaded that they must have it to be happy. Of course, it doesn't make them happy. But they believe it should, if only they get the right stuff. So they buy more, and more.

Over the last 50 years, even as families have gotten smaller, houses have gotten larger -- much, much larger. If you have a larger house, you need more stuff to fill it. So people have more stuff -- more of everything.

Think of what the media portrays as a typical family, a typical home, a typical lifestyle. If you believe that's typical, you think you should have it, too. You can't really afford it, you don't need it, you may not even truly want it, if you think about it. But you don't think about it. You respond based on the worldview that you have absorbed from the messages presented to you daily by people paid and trained to alter what you think and what you do, for their own benefit. Not for yours.
 

---

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
Great post, Josephine. That all sounds about right.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Yes, Josephine ... I must accept the force of that. It's a long time now since I read Vance Packard's "The Hidden Persuaders" but his analysis was and is timely. I suppose we are not all awkward, critical non-conformists who fight the dragons of consumerism. Some people truly have been hijacked. Resistance isn't futile but some folk don't see the need to resist in the first place. This is the Happy Life. Things.

[ 03. July 2006, 15:31: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I think that's quite reasonable tclune. I suppose we have to work on all fronts ... but don't you think that the current tendency is to absolve the individual from rersponsibility?

---

quote:

---

Families who let their children eat what they want all the time are just as much the abusers as those who relentless hawk their poisons on TV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Come on Hatless ... I'm not talking about those who are fat because of a medical condition or those who are broke because they don't earn enough to live reasonably comfortably. I'm talking about people who are fat because they can't resist sticky buns and people who are broke because they can't resist spending to the limit (even if it's a credit limit).

---

Watch it now, Fr. G., you are starting to sound like a capitalist pig! I think I am albeit somehow a bleeding heart too (wanting somehow us to have social programs even if they are messed-up, which made me turn in my Libertarian Party card sadly).

I myself am fat but not broke. I fought for years to get out of debt. I lived on mac&cheese. I cried once when somebody stole my lunch at work out of the fridge at a CD plant since I did not have the money to buy a replacement lunch. I know what it is like to juggle bills and pray you have enough to make your rent. To use credit cards to buy groceries when you are flat out of cash.

I got to a point with careful planning...writing everything down I ever buy for years..montly on an excel spread-sheet. I visualised a good job where I didn't have to have a degree outside my high-school diploma. I went on interviews for jobs saying you must have a B.S., B.A. or higher degree...in shoes with holes in them literally (hidden at bottom, I walk on the outer ridges of my feet due to extremely high arches). I got bitched out by interviewers more than once for interviewing for a job that I did not have the qualificaitons for (degree mainly or sometimes experience). I got made fun of by them sometimes. I signed up for over 14 temp agencies at one time. Took Microsoft Office tests over and over to up my score.

I landed a good job...got laid off...then landed a better one due to having the good job on my resume and others...

All this planning, paying off my debt (didn't have cable for years...had only dial-up internet etc) made me a FREE woman. I have ZERO DEBT outside of good debt (mainly my mondo condo). My car is 100% completely paid off. It may have scratches all over it. It is a 1994 old Saturn SL1 with 4 doors, stick-shift. It goes 0 to 60 mph in like 10 light-years. I still drive it into the ground.

I still try to budget myself. I do have friends that are thousands and thousands of dollars in debt. They have all the latest cable channels...go shopping for things all the time. Spend spend spend. Some of them are not fat though, just broke.

I heard this saying and I think it rings true...if you took all the money in the world and divided it up evenly, the poor would stay poor and the rich would stay rich.

Now I must ignore the ship and make some cold-calls...quit writing exciting interesting threads people! I need to ignore this place! Must make more $$$money$$$ today.
 

---

Posted by The Lady of the Lake (# 4347) on :
 
Fr. Gregory,

can you provide some examples of obese people who sue food companies for the problems they are undergoing ? It's not something I've heard of before.

I'm no expert on this, but it seems to me that obesity has become more common not only due to changes in what sort of food is available, but also with the decline of manual work. The majority of British adults over 30 do not do any regular exercise; the percentage of those who do is tiny, perhaps as small as 10%. Nowadays most of us have to make a concerted effort to keep fit, as it isn't part of our work.
 

---

Posted by Nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
I often think of the things I could have owned but for eating out all the time. Even as I write this I am struck by the irony that my gf will be coming back momentarily with breakfast from a local biscuit place. The $8 she spends there could have bought 2 dozen eggs, a bag of flour, a 1/2 pound of sausage and a couple of pounds of potatoes. Is it our fault we are always broke, or the marketing department of Tudor's Biscuit World?

When I do eat fatfilled sugary snacks, I do not go out and exercise. Is it my fault I am fat, or is it the fault of Dolly Madison's evil marketing department? ?

It doesn't take an Alan Cresswell (i.e rocket scientist )to figure out who has the primary responsibility in these two situations. Granted, there are exceptions to the rule, but in most cases the person only has themselves to blame. Though some exceptions to the rule might also include tedious wording in loan agreements that are designed to keep the borrower in the dark about certain aspects of the loan agreement.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Duchess

Thank you for that. Please understand I am not refering to people who have difficulty making ends meet to survive on low income. I am talking about people who are addicted .. people who can't resist the "extra slice." I suppose by saying that I have swung the other way already. It is an addiction and the pushers should get their come uppance.

Dear Lady of the Lake

I think I am on dodgy ground here. This was a remembered case from a TV documentary but the old memory won't deliver the details I'm afraid. I think it had to do with a fast food chain.
 

---

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
A class-action lawsuit was filed against McDonald's, charging them with knowingly imposing health risks on their customers, back in 2003. It was modeled on the lawsuits against tobacco companies.

The lawsuit has been tossed out, resubmitted, and tossed out again at least a couple of times. Google "lawsuit mcdonald's obesity" if you want details.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
The other night on the UK news they were observing 40 years of the advent of the credit card (American Express comes to mind). And then came some statistics of some scores of billions that the general public in the UK are now in debt to; unheard of 40 years ago. The report was suggesting that easy credit encouraged many if not most to borrow with little thought for the consequences.

Whereas in the 'good old days' hired purchase which was the nearest one could get to that kind of thing, was quite difficult to arrange and considered something of a risk if one weren't able to make regular payments (ie, the goods would be reclaimed).

My mother's of the school that just doesn't understand how people can use credit the way they do because 'debt' was a dirty word when she and my father were putting a home together. But now it's an acceptable, legitimate way of life if you want to live in a house, drive a car, get a university education or live a modern 21st century lifestyle.
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
My point is still being missed. It's not about fault. Establishing where the fault is doesn't help deal with the problem. People choose to eat more than they should, but they don't want to be fat. They know that eating too much will make them fat, and that this is dangerous and unattractive, but still they eat too much. Why? What is going on?

People are not as free as we like to think we are. We are not always able to make the choices we should. Establishing fault and playing the blame game certainly does not help. We need a more subtle understanding of human nature.
 

---

Posted by Papa Smurf (# 1654) on :
 
yes, it is up to us not to spend more than we can afford, but one of the things the TV program highlighted was the duplicity/hypocrisy of the banks

One person had 2 credit cards from differently named card companies but which were provided by the same bank.

He was sent a letter from one card saying "you are xx thousands in debt, pay now or else", and within a few days was sent a letter from the other company saying "please have a credit increase of xy thousand"
So in the space of a few days the same bank was chasing him to pay up, and encouraging him to spend more.
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Duchess

Thank you for that. Please understand I am not refering to people who have difficulty making ends meet to survive on low income. I am talking about people who are addicted .. people who can't resist the "extra slice." I suppose by saying that I have swung the other way already. It is an addiction and the pushers should get their come uppance.

Dear Lady of the Lake

I think I am on dodgy ground here. This was a remembered case from a TV documentary but the old memory won't deliver the details I'm afraid. I think it had to do with a fast food chain.

---

I think that more education is needed. I voraciously read Suze Orman books I could not afford to purchase, but went to the bookstore and stood in the aisle reading. I figured she was an expert and a woman, so I should follow her advice. I applied it and got out of debt.

We need to make Suze Orman 411 available EVERYWHERE. That is my solution.

The other step, people having self-control and applying the principals of saving up, paying off debt etc...that only comes through the spirit of the wind.
 

---

Posted by Nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
My point is still being missed. It's not about fault. Establishing where the fault is doesn't help deal with the problem. People choose to eat more than they should, but they don't want to be fat. They know that eating too much will make them fat, and that this is dangerous and unattractive, but still they eat too much. Why? What is going on?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
On UK TV last night the Panorama program reported on the growing problem of people getting into debt above the breathing line and the conflict between lending responsibly and the pursuit of profits by the High Street banks.

Now everybody likes to go "Boo Hiss!" at the High Street Banks but it got me wondering. Just because I can borrow £125,000, simply because I can't resist borrowing £125,000 ... does that make it the Bank's fault if I keep raiding the candy store?

---

quote:

---

Likewise it troubles me that some obese people have started looking beyond their minds and mouths to the name on the packet for someone to blame and sue for their own lack of self control. Are we creating a society of helpless victims who will do anything EXCEPT look at their own behaviours?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Fr Gregory, I thought you were a socialist? Recently, your posts remind me an awful lot of Melanie Philips (Peace Be Upon her).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
... I believe its time for the government to intervene and enforce guidelines on how much people can borrow as a proportion of income....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
... I believe its time for the government to intervene and enforce guidelines on how much people can borrow as a proportion of income....

---

No.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
High consumerism and debt is GOOD for capitalism.

---

Papio, I'm not denying that. Though the question here is capitalism a good system? In principle it works fine. Though for me it is a little too dependant on infinite resources, which we don't have.

This would be avoidable if we invested in recylcing, yet capitalism doesn't wantthat,as it wants tomake the most amount of money quickly.

MOST (not all) systems are good, yet in practice they really don't work. That's because as humans we really can suck when it comes to greed.Why have more money than the GDP of some countries, and the answer is because they can.

Has comsumerism created more problems than it have solved. I honestly don't know,I don't havean ecomics degree...
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Hi dosey.

I am not a capitalist.

I don't think capitalism is a good system.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
High consumerism and debt is GOOD for capitalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
primarily, the owners of the means of production.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Look, I know the reason I'm fat. I'm fat because eating and chatting on the computer are more pleasant by factors of 10 than exercise. Plain and simple.

---

But you make a damn good caser salad. And you have plenty of red wine. That is the important thing.
And I found a place at your table.

 

---

Posted by Honeybones (# 10603) on :
 
And I know why Im fat. Because I used to eat on auto-pilot and not think about the fact that two bowls of ice cream a day will make me fatter.
When you get up in the morning, do you think through the consequences of making and drinking coffee? No. You just do it. Thats how a person becomes obese. By not thinking, really by avoiding thinking. For years I purposefully did not think about what I was eating, I just ate for pleasure. To relax, de-stress, cover my feelings. Whatever. Getting into debt has just the same attitude, substituting money for food.
In the last eight months Ive lost some weight by changing the way I eat. But I dont think about food all the time. I think about how hungry I am all the time. I think about how good it feels to step on the scales these days. I THINK before every bite of food I take, about whether or not it is too much.
Why are so many people drowning in debt and obese? Because they mentally shift the blame onto someone/something else and happily continue with their destructive behaviour.
 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
I don't care if someone is fat or not (or broke). It just seems strange to me that people can be so interested in eating mass quantities when food is personally not very interesting. In fact, hunger is a pain in the ass, demanding daily attention. That so many can find satisfaction and reward in something so mundane is beyond me. When used as compensation for depression or whatever, it's as though you would want to breathe more air because you've had a bad day.

All the requirements to keep this carcass animated are boring and to put yourself into debt so that it can be more decorated is simply bizarre. Doesn't anyone feel uncomfortable when they over-eat? Blah!
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
primarily, the owners of the means of production.

---

Bingo-zingo. And it's to their advantage for us to buy more food and borrow more money. So they bombard us with messages telling us to do so. And by golly, it works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Banks do sometimes lend to people who can't afford to repay them. But they don't actually want that type of customer. It's nuts to think that banks want to lend someone $30,000 and get none of it back.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Not sure that I agree with that (although maybe it is different in the US/UK).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
I don't care if someone is fat or not (or broke). It just seems strange to me that people can be so interested in eating mass quantities when food is personally not very interesting. In fact, hunger is a pain in the ass, demanding daily attention. That so many can find satisfaction and reward in something so mundane is beyond me. When used as compensation for depression or whatever, it's as though you would want to breathe more air because you've had a bad day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I don't buy it, Rat. The most profitable loan surely comes from lending X amount over X years at X interest, and getting it paid back as contracted.

The minute it falls into arrears, someone needs to be paid to chase the debt.

---

Ah, but at that point the bank sells the debt on to another company. So they don't pay out, they make some money on the deal, on top of the interest and penalties they've already pulled in. And the fact that debt retrieval companies are willing to buy up bad debts would suggest that there's at least some money to be made there too.

I can't really argue the point very well, I don't know enough about it. Banks must like good payers too, or those of us who're not on the edge of bankruptcy wouldn't be able to get loans and mortgages. But by the same logic, there must be profit to be made from dodgy credit risks, or the cable TV channels wouldn't be loaded down with adverts by companies offering consolidation loans to the indebted. Many of them say outright that they'll lend to people who already have bad credit ratings or county-court judgements against them for bad debt.
 

---

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I don't buy it, Rat. The most profitable loan surely comes from lending X amount over X years at X interest, and getting it paid back as contracted.

---

quote:

---

Look, I know the reason I'm fat. I'm fat because eating and chatting on the computer are more pleasant by factors of 10 than exercise. Plain and simple.

AND

It also occurs to me that people who berate others for being fat tend to be people with extremely high metabolisms, and large amounts of self-righteousness.

---

C'mon, you know the evidence is against you . (and calling fit people self-righteous is just protecting yourself with insults whatever the evidence presented - no wry smile with finger wagging smiley available ).

Firstly, exercise creates endorphins, natural highs, so it is provably fun! Secondly, you may feel too tired to exercise, but actually if you do it it makes you more energetic and lifts lethargy. Thirdly, regarding metabolic rate, the more exercise you do, the higher it gets, so it's a circular arguement. You're base metabolism may be naturally low or high, but it will improve if you do exercise.

Trust me, I used to hate sport as a kid; I was always the last one to be picked, but I forced myself to take up exercise for a squadrillion reasons (mainly to get to spend time with my husband, but also so I had the energy to have kids, and because I can see my father-in-law's life being ruined by his excess weight and type II diabetes). I'm still at the back of the group in my triathlon club's training sessions, but I'm there and I'm improving and I'm taking responsibility for my health. (Personally, I think the thing is, most people just find it hard to grasp the fact that you're meant to get out of breath when you exercise, and yes it is mildly uncomfortable, but it gets better, and is immensely satisfying and the overall impact on your life is potentially huge).

Perhaps the famous dictum could just as well be 'the fat get fatter and the thin get thinner'. But I do think as a part of Christian maturity, which involves personal responsiblity, looking after our physical health is just as important a part as looking after our mental and spiritual health, as our life is a gift, not to be abused or wasted. Sure, it's easy to point the finger, but I think the Church's focus on sexual sin etc. misses out on the more pernicious and pervasive sin of greed, which applies to both these issues - food and money.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Exercise doesn't produce endorphins for me, or at least I don't react pleasurably to them. All I get is out of breath, fed up, and in pain.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
With Karl again. I have never felt high because of excercise, just sweaty and achy.
 

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I was a gym member for a year. And I actually went, 2-3 times a week.

It didn't give me a high at all, or a real sense of satisfaction. I could see the improvements that it made, but it was not enough to keep me doing it.

Sitting at home, eating doughnuts is far more fun.
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Yes, the only pleasure I have ever noticed from exercise is the feeling of relief when I stop.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Sport = ritual humiliation, getting jeered at by stupid jocks who couldn't pass a proper exam if their lives depended on it, feeling as though you have the worlds worst hangover, getting called a poofter and being beaten up in the shower room. Sweating a lot.

The Gym = largely the same as above, but you pay an obscene amount of money for the privelledge.

It's not even as though I actually lost any weight when I went to the gymn three times a week. I didn't.

I am fat and don't excercise. I almost certainly won't live to 90, perhaps not much past 60 (although i hope I do) but better that then going to the gym for the rest of my life. Yuck.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
Yes, the only pleasure I have ever noticed from exercise is the feeling of relief when I stop.

---

 

---

Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on :
 
Last 3 posters - then do a form of exercise that you enjoy! Go hiking, dancing, play frisbee. Do it more than just occassionally and you will feel the benefits. If I said driving gives you a feeling of freedom, you might not agree with me even after your first 3 or 4 lessons. Exercise is about a way of life, not sitting on your arse eating blood sugar rush inducing rubbish. And when you can walk up to your offie on the 4th floor without getting out of breath or using the lift you will feel a smile coming across your face and feel energised to face the day.
 

---

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Take up cycling. Nothing is more satisfying than abusing motorists in traffic, and then speeding away leaving them in impotent rage.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
Last 3 posters - then do a form of exercise that you enjoy! Go hiking, dancing, play frisbee. Do it more than just occassionally and you will feel the benefits.

---

quote:

---

If I said driving gives you a feeling of freedom, you might not agree with me even after your first 3 or 4 lessons. Exercise is about a way of life, not sitting on your arse eating blood sugar rush inducing rubbish.

---

quote:

---

And when you can walk up to your offie on the 4th floor without getting out of breath or using the lift you will feel a smile coming across your face and feel energised to face the day.

---

Can already do that. Tenth floor if called for. No exercise regime required
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
I'm not sure there is a form of excercise I enjoy.
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
Oh no, I can hear my hobby horse cantering up behind me. Must resist...must resist...

But please. In 37 years of life I think I've tried every form of exercise available in this country (with the exception of rugby). And I've persisted, God have I persisted. Played team games with friends, joined clubs, went to exercise classes, gym 4 times a week for 2 years. And I fucking hated every single fucking minute. Every single one was a chore, pursued with grim determination and no enjoyment at all. Why on earth can't people who like exercise believe that other people don't?

How many people who just love to exercise would be happy to sign up to spending every evening after work doing some chore they don't enjoy? For life? Might they backslide a little, maybe even decide to have some fun instead sometimes? I suspect so. Then can the rest of us lecture them about their lack of application and self-indulgence, and give them no credit for what they have forced themselves, miserably, to do?

(I do enjoy cycling, thank god, and cycled a 16 mile round trip to work in summer for the last 2 years. Didn't lose any weight, though.)
 

---

Posted by Astro (# 84) on :
 
About a year ago one of the colour supplements had an article about people who had commited suicide because of their debts. Anyway they managed to talk to someone who had been a junior government minister in the 1980's involved in the changes to credit laws. They expected him to say that it was not the governments' fault - however he did admit that they may have gone too far. He talked about the old days (1960's and 70's) when loans were largely confined to the middle classes (I remember when you needed to have saved with a building society for a few years before they would offer you a mortgage and the early credit cards were only available to those who were approved by their bank manager and with a credit limit set by him/her) and the government wanted to expand teh availability of credit to everyone so they did - they extended the availablity of credit to anyone - basically they allowed any financila institution to lend to anyone who walked in off the street whatever they wanted. The ex-minister admitted that this was probably not a good idea.

I suppose it was a bit like letting children who previously had to ask their parents for sweets the freedom to help themselves to whatever they like whenever they liked from the sweetshop.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Used to enjoy Rugby but it wasn't a great form of exercise, not at the level I played anyway.

Too much beer and post-match curries and you work, when young, to get your weight up then you can't shed the bloody stuff when you stop playing and a relatively tightly packed 15 stone become a very flabby 18 stone in (it seems) weeks.

Me on a cycle? You jest. It looks like the saddle is missing and the frame has disappeared up my arse
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Astro

I can back that up absolutely. I left the banking industry in 1979 precisely when these changes came into force. It's been downhill all the way since. Of course, if we didn't get ourselves into debt the economy would probably collapse. Credit is the new junk food. You can't stop and you can't get enough. We're all hooked ... including the Chancellor.
 

---

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:
He talked about the old days (1960's and 70's) when loans were largely confined to the middle classes (I remember when you needed to have saved with a building society for a few years before they would offer you a mortgage and the early credit cards were only available to those who were approved by their bank manager and with a credit limit set by him/her).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
I must admit I felt very uncomfortable at a recent Christian Aid week service that was led by a mixture of overweight and obese people begging the congregation to give more money. It was more the dissonance, rather than hypocracy, that got me.

---

quote:

---

I've tried every form of exercise available...I hated every ****ing single minute......................(I do enjoy cycling, thank god, and cycled a 16 mile round trip to work in summer for the last 2 years. Didn't lose any weight, though.)

---

?

And anyway, it's not that you didn't lose weight, it's whether you gained weight, or how much more you would have gained if you hadn't done in.


 

---

Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on :
 
done in ? sorry, done it
 

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I do walk where I reasonable can. I even have a pedometer, which is quite interesting. I always use the stairs, not the lift.

Sports I am so rubbish at, you wouldn't believe, so no way. Hiking - we do when on holiday, and that is lots of fun, but it takes a lot of time out, so is rarely practical outside specific breaks.

Cycling - I cycled to work for a year or so, in East London. Please would those who suggest cycling do this - in London, in the rush hour, every day for at least a few months. And then tell me that "Cycling is such a pleasure". F*cking awful, but it does help your prayer life. Along with dancing, I don't have a good sense of balance, so these will never be natural for me, and so will always be hard work.

I am overweight. There are two related reasons for this. Firstly, I tend to live a fairly sedentary lifestyle - I work in an office on computers. I do what I can, including taking a reasonable walk at lunchtimes, but it is a hard job, and I really have no energy to do anything else outside work. Why do I have no energy - partly because of being overweight, and partly due to being ill.

Secondly, when I am feeling grotty, I tend to eat - comfort eating. Not good, but the sugar boost it gives me does help me continue. Of course it doesn't help the weight. I know I am not the only one for whom this is an issue - either I eat something which puts on weight, or I am totally lethargic, and unable to function. So I eat, which ( in the longer term ) drives the spiral downwards.

So I'm human. Sorry.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
I have always weighed more than I should, and have always eaten significantly less then do my skinny grandparents (who eat cakes every single day ffs).

Not only do people who weigh a few stones more than they should tend to eat LESS then you, they tend to buy CHEAPER food than you, oh skinny judgemental ones.

[ 04. July 2006, 13:16: Message edited by: Papio ]
 

---

Posted by Nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
I loathe lawsuits, laws, and the like aimed at regulating people's behaviour - and Lord knows there can be very tragic, devastating reasons that one is fat or broke or both. I loathe stereotypes most of all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by madteawoman:

If there were no advertising, there would be very little temptation. My level of willpower would be far less relevant, because there would be much less to resist.

---

quote:

---

quote:

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
I must admit I felt very uncomfortable at a recent Christian Aid week service that was led by a mixture of overweight and obese people begging the congregation to give more money. It was more the dissonance, rather than hypocracy, that got me.


What dissonance? Surely you don't actually believe that these people wouldn't need to collect money from the congregation if they donated their own grocery money instead?

---

quote:

---

We're fat because we diet. We're fat because depleted fat cells are desperate to replenish themselves before the next "famine" comes along.

---

quote:

---

Jan.1st 2005. I gave up all sweets. Since then not so much as a piece of birthday cake or a spoon of jam has passed my lips. I also began working-out six days a week. By Jan. 1st 2006 I had lost the 60 pounds. At that point, following the same program, my body began to regain.

My body has learned to live on less calories and compensate for the extra activity. I've gained back a pound a month since then. In five years I'll have it all back; only then I'll be just as fat, while having to work-out six days a week and never eating sweets.

---

quote:

---

We can't win this battle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

Cycling - I cycled to work for a year or so, in East London. Please would those who suggest cycling do this - in London, in the rush hour, every day for at least a few months. And then tell me that "Cycling is such a pleasure".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
Newman's Own - you are most welcome to come down to my local running club track and see all the kids there from the local sink estate who are learning self confidence,

---

quote:

---

teamwork

---

quote:

---

friendship

---

quote:

---

a healthy lifestyle

---

quote:

---

and keeping away from drugs and violence and gangs. The crappy diet industry ain't got a look in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Cycling - I cycled to work for a year or so, in East London. Please would those who suggest cycling do this - in London, in the rush hour, every day for at least a few months. And then tell me that "Cycling is such a pleasure".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
NP,

If advertising doesn't effect people's behaviour, why does anyone bother to advertise?

And healthier food is, almost always, more expensive.

(Xpost)

---

Advertising, like opinion polls, insurance sales, and pollination, works on the chaos theory. Did you know that out of 750 million spam messages sent, only one will generate a sale? A macrobiotic healthnut can watch all the Pizza Hut commercials he wants without fear that he'll be taken over by an irresistable urge to eat pizza.

Temptation exists, mind control does not. Turn off the friggin' television once in a while. Take control of your lives. Or better yet, fight as hard for governmental control over added sugar as people do for gun and drug control.

You're kinda starting to sound like a supervisor at a call center where I once worked. He claimed that if we couldn't sell a particular (useless) insurance product, it was our fault. Had nothing to do with whether the customer wanted or needed it, and never mind that we were cold-calling them at home - we should be able to sell it because we are trained in how to keep control of the conversation and blah blah blah.
 

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
ken - I hate you. In a loving sort of way of course.

I just think that many of those who promote cycling live in places where it is a pleasure to do. But cycling on busy congested roads, at peak hours, is not pleasant at all. It may be good and healthy, and I can appreciate that some people can enjoy it. But for me, it is awful.

Of course, these days, working 30+ miles from home, cycling is not practical. Although I am sure Ken will tell me how he cycled 50 miles into work and then home every day for several years.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
In my case, I'm not sure if it's the 17 miles or the thousand feet of climbing that most deter me
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Someone ought to test the amount of noxious fumes people breathe in while doing their healthy cycling commute in heavy-traffic areas.
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Someone ought to test the amount of noxious fumes people breathe in while doing their healthy cycling commute in heavy-traffic areas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by I_Am_Not_Job:
And anyway, it's not that you didn't lose weight, it's whether you gained weight, or how much more you would have gained if you hadn't done it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:

quote:

---

quote:

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
I must admit I felt very uncomfortable at a recent Christian Aid week service that was led by a mixture of overweight and obese people begging the congregation to give more money. It was more the dissonance, rather than hypocracy, that got me.


What dissonance? Surely you don't actually believe that these people wouldn't need to collect money from the congregation if they donated their own grocery money instead?

---

OK. How about incongrous. Big fat person stands up and says 'please feed the starving little children'. I can see the cartoon already.

---

quote:

---

We're fat because we diet. We're fat because depleted fat cells are desperate to replenish themselves before the next "famine" comes along.

---

quote:

---

Don't diet, eat healthily in the first place. Yo-yo dieting never works. Just cabbage soup vs. normal 3 meals a day is obviously going to confuse the body's metabolism.

---

quote:

---

Jan.1st 2005. I gave up all sweets. Since then not so much as a piece of birthday cake or a spoon of jam has passed my lips. I also began working-out six days a week. By Jan. 1st 2006 I had lost the 60 pounds. At that point, following the same program, my body began to regain.

My body has learned to live on less calories and compensate for the extra activity. I've gained back a pound a month since then. In five years I'll have it all back; only then I'll be just as fat, while having to work-out six days a week and never eating sweets.

---

quote:

---

I'm sorry you've struggled, but there are a lot more factors to just not eating sweets and doing exercise. Yes, the body does get used to changes and so we have to change our training programmes. It makes sense, if you're fitter you have to push yourself harder to get results. The same programme for years will become increasingly less effective. Paula Radcliffe isn't doing the same training she did as a teenager, why would it be any different for anyone else. Sweets obviously aren't the only source of calories. And it's scientific fact that as we grow older our muscle mass depletes more and it's easier to put on weight. That's why experienced athletes in their 60s don't break world records, but they still go for 'good for age' results. I was a fat teenager, it took me to the age of 26 before I could run 10km faster than my dad (who by then was 64).

---

quote:

---

We can't win this battle.

---

quote:

---

Agreed if you're referring to age. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be fit and healthy. My father-in-law is close to losing his foot, and thus essentially his independence, due to type II diabetes and a preference to have a touch of bread with his butter rather than a smidgen of butter on his bread, for that momentary taste, and then is miserable with diabetic depression the rest of the time. My dad is still running half marathons and is having the time of his life in his retirement despite probably being a stone heavier than he was 15 years ago. I certainly know which lifestyle I'd prefer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
C'mon, you know the evidence is against you . (and calling fit people self-righteous is just protecting yourself with insults whatever the evidence presented - no wry smile with finger wagging smiley available ).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
Just cos you've had some bad experiences in the past doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. How many times do I have to say in my posts I was crap at sport as a kid and hated it, but I've learnt to enjoy being fit and healthy - v different.

---

quote:

---

If I said driving gives you a feeling of freedom, you might not agree with me even after your first 3 or 4 lessons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

I think the problem is that most of us live in environments to which we are not adapted, and so things that were automatic for millions of years -- getting exercise and eating the most healthy diet available -- no longer work the way they used to. At no other point in human history have so many people needed to choose to get exercise in order to stay healthy instead of just getting that exercise in the normal course of their daily lives. At no other point in human history has there been so much fat and sugar so readily available; people didn't use to have to choose healthy foods -- they ate what was available and were grateful for it. So what we're having to do now is very difficult and not what our bodies and appetites have evolved to do.

---

I think our bodies have always evolved to do this. A high metabolism puts more oxadative stress on the system, simply the more exercise you do the quicker you die. As we have become more sedentary our bodies have reacted by reducing muscle mass and replacing it with fat . (btw this reduces metabolism)

Or bodies still love fat and sugar though, (useful for that occasional famine) so salt sugar, and fat are all hedonistic.

So, no really its no one's fault they're fat as it is what evolution has got us to do. Though on that note we are designed to enjoy exercise (having a high muscle density always helps when escaping that T-rex ). So really people who don't enjoy exercise I believe its more to do with thier mindset than NOt being able to enjoy it. some people love the competitive aspect that where they get thier 'high' from.
 

---

Posted by muchafraid (# 10738) on :
 
I'm not following, dosey.

You say that we are "designed to enjoy exercise," but some people don't exercise because they don't enjoy it. Then you say it's more of a "mindset" thing than not enjoying it. That's sort of confusing.

And isn't enjoyment, by definition, a mindset?

I'm not sure if we were designed to necessarily enjoy exercise. Sure, when we play and run and get our heart rate up, endorphins are released which make us feel good. Hopefully, the "rush" we feel will make us want to continue that behavior. Therefore, I think the enjoyment factor is secondary.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? In this case, I believe it was the chicken (exercise).

Also, since when does exercise cause us to die more quickly? I've never heard that before...
 

---

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I don't buy it, Rat. The most profitable loan surely comes from lending X amount over X years at X interest, and getting it paid back as contracted.

The minute it falls into arrears, someone needs to be paid to chase the debt.

---

Ah, but at that point the bank sells the debt on to another company. So they don't pay out, they make some money on the deal, on top of the interest and penalties they've already pulled in. And the fact that debt retrieval companies are willing to buy up bad debts would suggest that there's at least some money to be made there too.

I can't really argue the point very well, I don't know enough about it. Banks must like good payers too, or those of us who're not on the edge of bankruptcy wouldn't be able to get loans and mortgages. But by the same logic, there must be profit to be made from dodgy credit risks, or the cable TV channels wouldn't be loaded down with adverts by companies offering consolidation loans to the indebted. Many of them say outright that they'll lend to people who already have bad credit ratings or county-court judgements against them for bad debt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I don't buy it, Rat. The most profitable loan surely comes from lending X amount over X years at X interest, and getting it paid back as contracted.


Depends what charges you make for missed or late payments. Let's say I lend you £1,000 to be paid back in 10 monthly payments of £105. That'll net me a profit of £50 in 10 months. But suppose you're struggling to pay it off, and one month (say month 6) you can't make your payment. I, as your bank manager, charge you, say, £20 for the missed payment, and charge interest to your outstanding debt to cover the missed payment, which could be at a punitive rate of interest, but for the sake of argument I'll be generous and call it another £4 for each remaining month, so £20 in total. I get my money back in 11 months instead of 10, but I make £90 profit instead of £50.

I've not done anything in that example that would be unusual, in fact I've been fairly generous in some of my charges compared with some real-life examples, but I've substantially increased my profit for very little effort on my part. There's no need to "chase" debt at this sort of level, because provision for these charges will be built into the loan agreement - generally, you can just send a new statement and ask the borrower to call you to discuss the missed payment. Word the letter in sufficiently threatening terms and they'll be desperate to talk to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
In charging any fee for late payments, you still need to be repaid ultimately. If your customer goes bankrupt, you can charge all you like, but you almost certainly won't get paid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Well, as Ruth said, it makes little or no sense to say it is purely the individual when actually the problem is increasing in just about every community in just about first world, capitalist country under the sun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
In charging any fee for late payments, you still need to be repaid ultimately. If your customer goes bankrupt, you can charge all you like, but you almost certainly won't get paid.

---

Exactly, which is why the less scrupulous lenders try to walk the tightrope and pick up the people who will struggle to pay, but manage it in the end. It usually takes an awful lot of debt to drive someone to bankruptcy, and no one wants to be declared bankrupt, so once a loan is taken out, both the lender and the borrower have the same aim of making sure Mr B doesn't go bankrupt. The borrower's usually got far more to lose from bankruptcy, which is why the lender can get so much out of it.

People get into stupid amounts of debt not by taking out enormous loans they'll never pay back, but by taking out small loans, which they struggle with, then slightly larger ones to cover that, struggle a bit more, and so on. A cynical lender will count on that. If a borrower starts to really struggle, and looks at any stage like going under, you arrange an appointment to consolidate the outstanding debt into a form they might be able to manage, or put enough pressure on them that they consolidate it themselves with an even bigger loan from someone else. It's probably not a good move from their point of view, and it only delays the inevitable, but the lender gets paid off and the problem of bad debt becomes someone else's problem.

[ETA: And what Rat said]

[ 05. July 2006, 09:26: Message edited by: The Great Gumby ]
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I must admit I read the thread title and thought, "Serious discussion or crie de coeur?" But then I remembered Father's svelte figure and decided it must be a discussion. ( )

It reminds me of a story I heard from a former colleague. He'd been working with a family who were deeply in debt. Somehow or other (don't know how, because this sounds highly irregular) he'd arranged that next time there was money coming their way, he'd pick up the cheque, take it to them, get it cashed with them and sit there while they used it to pay off some of their debts.

The day came, and my colleague went to pick up the cheque, only to be told that it had, in error, been sent out the previous day. He raced around to the house, to find the family....

.... watching their brand new television.

Yes, you can go on till the cows come home about "poor poor people". But there's just no helping some folk.
 

---

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Well, I have to say that the banking system in other places sounds like a bit of a worry. Working in an area that sorts out banking problems on a daily basis, (and, NO, I do not work for any bank and there's probably more than one that dislikes me intensely), I am not convinced in the slightest of any conspiracy to draw in the near-bankrupt in Australia.


We have a system of negative credit reporting and, so far as I have seen (after years of doing what I do) no bank will touch anyone with a negative credit listing.

I see negligent lending. I tell banks that they have to write off lots and lots of dollars in debt. But I've never seen any policy to do so or to woo bad debtors.

Makes me sort of glad that I live here.
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

1) competitive sport of any kind is out, as whilst not actually dyspraxic I'm way, way, way at the bottom of the hand eye coordination curve, as anyone who's ever seen how fast I get through crockery can testify. People hate playing sports with me because it's too easy.

---

See, this is where I have difficulty with people who blythly claim that sport builds self esteem, or that the 'competitive aspect' is enjoyable. Sure, that might be so if you can aspire to some basic level of competence! For a naturally competitive person, continually losing is not fun.

I have the agility and co-ordination of a mossy rock. Catching or hitting flying objects is a near impossibility. Swimming, which I try to do out of duty once a week, is mainly an exercise in concentration, otherwise I get mixed up and breath while my head is underwater. And I fall over or run into things, a lot. Fast things like running or squash nearly always result in me getting my feet mixed up, falling over, and getting hurt, or clattering into a wall and getting hurt. And you should have seen me on the treadmill at the gym - anything above a brisk walk is an accident waiting to happen.

For example, with friends I once played badminton weekly for 2 years. In that time I never won a game (getting a single point was a memorable occasion) and regularly hurt myself. People quite naturally didn't want to play me, though they'd never have said so - it was boring and embarassing. I dropped out of the game when shortage of courts meant that we started having to play doubles every week. These people were friends and we were far past the age of sports related cruelty, but it's still humiliating to realise that people are quietly and politely manouvering to avoid having you as a partner.

So I'm supposed to enjoy activities that I'm naturally bad at (and, no, practise doesn't help) and where I regularly get hurt. And continually coming last is supposed to raise my self esteem! I must be the wrong sort of masochist.

And I've been thinking about the cycling thing... What I enjoy about cycling is that I get to see beautiful places I wouldn't otherwise, see the wildlife and countryside changing without scaring off the squirrels, and ocassionally I get to go 'whee' downhill really fast. The actual exercise part is the usual unrewarding slog, but there are enough ancillary benefits (squirrels and whee) to make it worthwhile. I'm still crap at it, though.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
I enjoy some forms of competition but not others.

And i agree that sporty types are often too quick to assume that we must be like them, really...

Not that us non-sporty types ever do the same thing, eh?
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Not that us non-sporty types ever do the same thing, eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Well, as Ruth said, it makes little or no sense to say it is purely the individual when actually the problem is increasing in just about every community in just about first world, capitalist country under the sun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by magdalenegospel:
The thing, sports wise, that got me into it was adult trampolining. I was incredibly unco-ordinated for the first year, but had made friends, and stuck at it.

---

When I was at school, I was one of those who were always chosen last to be on a team, uncoordinated overweight geek that I was. I would rather sit on the bleachers during gym class, feigning a stiff neck or an irritable bowel, than be the laughingstock of the jocks.

But then one day they brought in a trampoline. Something new, different, fascinating. I loved it! Bouncing up and down on that thing, moving around, changing direction, etc. seemed so incredibly easy -- and fun! I had finally found something to make gym class worthwhile for me.

But all the jocks hated it, and after that one day we never saw the trampoline again!
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Karl, what sporty types need to imagine is not how we feel when ask to tackle a football off Jonny Goodatsports, but how they would feel if asked to sing in front of their entire office, or appear on Mastermind or engage in some activety they find difficult or impossible in front of people who find it easy.

That should solve the difficulty they have in understanding what we are saying.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Papio, you have it.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
When I found out that the diet/gym companies use "natural athletic types" that had been in the hospital or for some other reason had been off their game and got fat, took pictures of them for the "before" shot, and then let them do what they loved to do naturally which is to say EXERCISE LIKE HELL until they looked all buff and trim then took the "After" shot, I knew that society was completely fucked in the head with regards to weight. Oh and of course they make them sign non-disclosure agreements so they don't admit this.

Which is not to say we shouldn't eat better and/or exercise. I am a happy athletic lazyass that had to make the conversion to a gym and stick with it lately. I am trying to eat better too. But will I ever be able to look like a muscle bound hard body? No.

Some of us have bodies that will be pear shaped. Some of us will have bodies that are apple shaped. And some of us will look like Mr./Ms. Olympia. The latter shitheads should thank the gods and keep their fucking opinions to themselves about how the rest of us should look.

And fashion magazines? God spare us from women and men that expect models to look like boys and crack whores. I'd like to force feed the fucking models until fashion magazines have nothing but Size 10 to choose from. Especially Kate "Crack Whore" Moss.

P.S. Fashionfuckinistas, more C or D-cups please, thanksbunches.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
A few comments:

--There are many reasons for being overweight, and they're not always under an individual's control.

--I've heard on the news many times that the most frequent reason for bankruptcy here in the US is healthcare bills. We don't have national insurance, many people have no insurance at all, and those who do have it may not be able to afford the co-pays. Plus the bankruptcy laws have recently been tightened, so it's harder to discharge your debt...even if you have excellent reasons for doing so.

Here's a Reader's Digest view of my situation: I pushed myself to work for many years, despite health problems. It was very important to me to be self-supporting. The job market was leaning towards temporary employment at the time, so I had a series of temp jobs (some as long as several years), with no insurance. I saved up money, but repeatedly had to use it for medical expenses. When I finally got private insurance, it was much more expensive than an employer's policy would've been--and. of course, the price went up frequently over the years.

I'd avoided credit cards like the plague. But, having gone through periods of unemployment due to the job market and dealing with worsening health, I finally decided I needed a safety net. So I got credit cards.

I got on disability, but there were waiting periods, etc., and I had to pay for both basic survival things and medical co-pays, deductibles, and such. My private insurance was nearly $600/mo. at one point. They wouldn't let me apply for a lower cost plan; and, with my health problems, I probably wouldn't have been accepted elsewhere. FINALLY, they put me on a lower cost plan, with a higher deductible.

In the last several years, I've run up megadebt for basic stuff. I might well have been out on the street otherwise--or unable to get my many assorted medications, and too sick to take care of myself at all. I've got some other medical benefits now...but I'm caught in a mess where if one benefit increases slightly, they'll decrease another one greatly. I've recently gone from 0 share of cost for one program to several hundred dollars a month. Legal folks are looking into it; but the reality is that many people are in my position, and the system doesn't care.

I've spoken with a credit counselor. He was shocked by my situation, didn't think bankruptcy would work for me, and suggested trying to negotiate a temporary lowering of fees with the credit card companies.

This is just to illustrate that a person can be dedicated to being self-supporting, to paying off bills, etc.--but it may not work out.


--Re exercise: I'm another one for whom it's hard. I'm in bed most of the time, due to health problems.

For those asking about alternatives, you might check out t'ai chi, chi gong, and gentle forms of yoga. (Like the book "Gentle Yoga", written for folks who need adapted techniques.)
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
When I found out that the diet/gym companies use "natural athletic types" that had been in the hospital or for some other reason had been off their game and got fat, took pictures of them for the "before" shot, and then let them do what they loved to do naturally which is to say EXERCISE LIKE HELL until they looked all buff and trim then took the "After" shot, I knew that society was completely fucked in the head with regards to weight. Oh and of course they make them sign non-disclosure agreements so they don't admit this.

Which is not to say we shouldn't eat better and/or exercise. I am a happy athletic lazyass that had to make the conversion to a gym and stick with it lately. I am trying to eat better too. But will I ever be able to look like a muscle bound hard body? No.

Some of us have bodies that will be pear shaped. Some of us will have bodies that are apple shaped. And some of us will look like Mr./Ms. Olympia. The latter shitheads should thank the gods and keep their fucking opinions to themselves about how the rest of us should look.

And fashion magazines? God spare us from women and men that expect models to look like boys and crack whores. I'd like to force feed the fucking models until fashion magazines have nothing but Size 10 to choose from. Especially Kate "Crack Whore" Moss.

P.S. Fashionfuckinistas, more C or D-cups please, thanksbunches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
brown rice costs more, takes forever to cook and looks manky.

However it would be very good for me................

---

Yes it does cost a little more -- but not much, and less than the "special" white rices.

It doesn't seem to take any more time to cook if you get a rice cooker, an electric steamer.

You can put in the rice and springwater, distilled, tap -- or even other liquids -- fat-free spicy chicken broth -- coconut milk -- whatever you like, according to directions --

Then leave it there on the countertop and wander off to do what else you have to do -- it's not you hanging over the stove cooking it.

And it wouldn't look "manky" if we were not spoiled, having been exposed to one basic type of washed-out hulled blah write rice all our lives.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Yes, but it tastes manky too.
 

---

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
Many people on this thread have mentioned that cheap foods tend to be unhealthy and healthy foods tend to be expensive. Something I was surprised no one mentioned is that it's not just a matter of whether a food contains sugar and fat - it's what kind of sugar and fat.

We're all starting to hear about trans-fats & hydrogenated oils, which are particularly bad. Many diet products (I shouldn't name brands, right?) like the shakes or energy bars contain hydrogenated fats, yet are marketed as healthy! Hydrogenated fats are cheaper because of their water content, but they're being linked to all kinds of health problems.

Another ingredient that's problematic is high-fructose corn syrup. This is a modified sweetener that's much worse than plain old fashioned sugar. Food manufacturers switched to it to save money, so even manufactured foods that once were bad because of sugar content are now even worse because of HFCS. Examples are non-diet sodas, fruit juices (that aren't 100% juice), jams and jellies (that aren't 100% "spreadable fruit"), and so forth. Pancake syrup is another example. You can buy a 32-oz. bottle of pancake syrup around here for about $3.50 or less. But it's high fructose corn syrup with some maple flavoring. To buy pure maple syrup, which is healthier, costs over $10 for half the amount. High fructose corn syrup is now thought to actually cause type 2 diabetes, and lead to greater obesity than other sweeteners. (google it for the research.) But in the past, the same foods didn't contain these cheaper, modified ingredients. So unhealthy foods were still healthier than they are now, and eating them wouldn't make you as fat.

So that's one more example of how food manufacturers do bear some of the blame - they're using ingredients that are really bad for our health because they're cheap and don't cut into the profits as much as more natural, healthier ingredients. To get foods with the healthier ingredients, you have to spend a lot more money, and in many cases, go to a special health food store.

Anyone who's ever lived in an area that's predominately low-income knows that it's next to impossible to get healthier foods in those areas, especially if, as some have mentioned earlier, you don't have a car.

And people often don't have the information they need. Food manufacturers aren't going to volunteer information about how unhealthy their foods are. In the case of trans fats, there was enough of a public demand for foods that don't contain it, that many foods added that information to their labels. Maybe we all need to start pressuring the food manufacturers directly and let them know that we're reading their labels and avoiding certain products.
 

---

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
Sorry for the double-post, but this is pertaining to a different aspect of this multi-stranded thread.

Just to chime in with others...

I always weighed about 115 pounds from the age of 14 to the age of 28. Then I started taking an antidepressant and mood stabilizer. Turns out I was skinny because my lack of interest in food and tendency to starve myself was a symptom of the depression. The pills put on weight, plus getting rid of the depression that made me starve myself got me eating more, and also turning 30 probably involved a metabolism change as it normally does. Plus I had a desk job (although I had for several years before without gaining weight).

My exercise habits (ie, none) didn't change, but I gained 60 pounds in the first 6 years. I'm 34 now and weigh 180! I have to admit, I was underweight to start with. I also think it's more about how you look and feel than the numbers on the scale. I look fatter than I'd like to, and I don't have a lot of energy, but then again, I never did. I had a higher metabolism, plus the regular cycles of hypomania, but I never had much stamina.

I tried going to a gym and found it prohibitively boring. I mostly did the weights to try to build muscle, and then took walks around my neighborhood for cardio exercise, since that's so much more interesting than those stationary machines. I would also take stairs instead of elevators, but it never got any easier.

A year ago (this coming Saturday!) I moved out here to CA to go to school, and I was really excited to not have to bring a car with me. I immediately started walking more, only taking the bus for long distances or when I needed to get somewhere quickly. Instead of losing weight, or increasing my metabolism, or increasing my energy levels, or anything nice like that, all I did was develop plantar fasciitis. I'm trying not to let that get in the way of my walking, but it does.

I'm a student now, and work on weekends, at a job that has me active & on my feet. Also, I have a lot of hill-climbing. The hill climbing still hasn't gotten any easier, but I do get the endorphin high - also the aches and sweat and occasional asthma attack... But no weight loss yet!

I think what RuthW said above is dead on - that we evolved for certain conditions and a certain lifestyle (allowing of course that there is a lot of variation in people depending on their ethnic and family backgrounds) and we are now in a completely different situation. I think we should try our best, but not allow ourselves to be beat up for our failures. Also, I think people should seek first to be helpful, and never judgmental, of others.

Here's an example: I had a roommate in college who had perfect skin. She believed it was due completely to her regimen: once a day she cleaned her face with rubbing alcohol. That was it. No other cleansing, moisturizers, anything. As someone (I don't remember who!) above noted, people often credit themselves with good health when it actually comes naturally to them. As someone else wisely noted above, it's not to your credit to resist what doesn't tempt you! And it doesn't help, either, to make everything a moral issue. In earlier centuries, and even in my lifetime in certain religious circles, my bipolar illness used to be a moral issue - the depression would be some kind of demonic oppression that I was giving in to, and the hypomanic symptoms (losing my temper, swearing, being irritable and short with people, etc.) were obvious moral failings. My only response to that is that without any effort on my part, once I started taking a few pills for it, all of those moral flaws of mine disappeared completely! But if I go off my pills, they come back. What moral failings do we see in others that in a future century they'll have pills for, I wonder?
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:
You can buy a 32-oz. bottle of pancake syrup around here for about $3.50 or less. But it's high fructose corn syrup with some maple flavoring. To buy pure maple syrup, which is healthier, costs over $10 for half the amount.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Suggestions on a postcard, please.

---

I'm not a `sporty' person, by any means. I hated sport passionately until I discovered karate at the age of about 14. 30-odd years later I'm still hooked. Of course, being the kind of person I am, I've probably only acquired the same skills in my 30 years of training that a natural athlete would get in a year or two.

My inability to make progress at the same rate as the sporty folks bothered me when I was a kid, but it doesn't bother me these days. We are all as nature made us, after all. I don't beat myself up about it -- why should I: it's more fun to beat the other guy up

From a fitness-increase-per-hour perspective, I don't find martial arts as effective as running. But I despise running, so martial arts works out better for me in the long run.

In short: try karate or some other martial art. This kind of training in nothing like football, or running, or the other stuff we learned to hate at school.

Some other random thoughts:

1. People are different. I can remain reasonably fit and not too fat by careful eating and regular exercise. But some people can't. It's wrong to harangue these folks.

2. Way, way back in my days as a research cardiologist, I saw a surprisingly large number of sick hearts belonging to very fit people. These people usually turned out to be very dedicated athletes. But the type and intensity of exercise that an `ordinary' person with a day-job is likely to perform is unlikely to have significant long-term health dis-benefits.

3. It's true that people whose non-exercise energy needs are higher tend to be more `fidgety' than people with lower energy needs. But, from a bimechanical perspective, the fidgetiness itself is not enough to account for the discrepancy. More likely the fidgetiness is a consequence of the higher metabolic rate, not a cause.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I must find the research base this programme was based on. It did find that the overweight people did not have a lower metabolic rate than the skinnies, despite the received wisdom.
 

---

Posted by Keren-Happuch (# 9818) on :
 
I saw an article in a magazine about ways to increase your exercise without noticing it - things like taking the stairs rather than the lift, but also opening doors rather than walking through automatic ones, doing the washing up by hand rather than in a dishwasher etc. It also mentioned that fidgeting was a good way to burn calories. Unfortunately I'm already a fidget and we don't have a dishwasher, so it doesn't help much!

Someone asked why people keep eating when they're already full. When I was an angsty teenager I used to comfort eat a lot. You know that it'll make you fat, you know you feel bloated and uncomfortable but you keep doing it anyway. I used to scour the cupboards for something to eat thinking, "oh well, may as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb". Trouble is, even though that's not a problem any more, it's still hard to shift the weight that resulted from it.
 

---

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I must find the research base this programme was based on. It did find that the overweight people did not have a lower metabolic rate than the skinnies, despite the received wisdom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Exercise is important and, funnily enough, the more you weigh (meaning the more you have to lug around), the harder it is and the less pleasurable (or more revolting) it is.

Try carrying around a 5kg bag of potatoes for an hour. Carry it everywhere with you. That 5kgs on your body will be just as hard to lug around, even if evenly spread.

---

I don't think it's quite as simple as that. I was a normal sized child, and hated and was bad at sports even then. I was probably at my thinnest ever during the period when I was asked to leave both ballet and scottish country dancing classes for being too clumsy and hopeless to teach.

And I was probably at my biggest (just back from working in the US!) when I discovered that cycling wasn't too unpleasant.

I've just realised I've made myself sound like some kind of fairy elephant on this thread - just as well nobody ever pays attention to anything I say. I'm a klutz, but not immovably massive. Like Twilight, I put on about a stone, maybe more, after giving up smoking and have never been able to shift it permanently, it just keeps coming back. But that was pretty much unrelated to the amount of exercise I was doing before and after and during giving up.
 

---

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
But my point is, that exercise itself is unlikely to shift that weight. You can exercise all you like, but if you eat too much, you will probably still look like any fit person who eats a lot - like a weightlifter or a sumo wrestler.

You either have to like looking rounded (and there's nought necessarily wrong with that) or, if you want to look skinny (which is not necessarily a good thing in itself), you have to eat way less.

Exercise is good, but much harder if you have to do it with extra kgs. But having too little kgs is bad. Just look at that Pirates of the Caribbean woman. Blerrr. Poor dear.

[ 06. July 2006, 11:10: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]
 

---

Posted by Genie (# 3282) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
At the end of the day, what contributes most to a person's weight, is how much that person eats.
<snip>
The best (and really only) way to lose weight is to eat less. Seems to me that the easiest thing to do is to look at what's on your plate every time you eat (assuming that you eat too much) and throw half of it into the bin before starting. If you do this, the potatoes will come off easily and walking/running/riding etc will be a much more pleasant experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
The best (and really only) way to lose weight is to eat less. Seems to me that the easiest thing to do is to look at what's on your plate every time you eat (assuming that you eat too much) and throw half of it into the bin before starting. If you do this, the potatoes will come off easily and walking/running/riding etc will be a much more pleasant experience.

---

This kind of statement is frequently made by people who find that a moderate diet and a modicum of exercise an effective way to control their weight. Sure, if what you need to do to manage your weight is to eat fewer donuts, that should not be a major sacrifice.

The people I sympathise with are those who have already cut out all non-essential food, don't drink, exercise more than they have time for, and are still overweight. Telling such people to eat fewer donuts is a bit of a poke in the eye, I should imagine.

It is, of course, absolutely true that, unless you have a metabolic disorder, there will be a level of energy intake below which you will lose weight. You don't see many corpulent people in famine zones. But if you can control your weight by eating fewer donuts, and another person has to agonize about whether he can risk risk eating anything but lettuce today, you should count yourself fortunate.
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
I really dont eat much - but i do absolutely no exercise at the moment. I know that thats what i need to do to shift the extra weight ive added over the last couple of years Its a lot easier if theres someone to exercise with....
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
Plus, it's not necessarily the case that the fatter person is eating more, in bulk. You can eat a lot more brown rice than you can doughnuts to get the same effect. You could snack throughout the day on fruit and, I don't know, boiled fish without gaining as much weight as the person who ate 2 meals at Macdonalds and was hungry in between.

The quality and type of food are important. As several people have said, we're programmed to seek out fat and sugar for good reasons, the fact that they're easily available now means that most Western people need absolutely undreamt of levels of willpower not to get fat. Some people don't have it.

My grandad never had to worry about spending his leisure time 'doing exercise', he'd have laughed at the idea. And he never had to fight to control his liking for high fat high sugar foods. He did hard physical work in a shipyard all day and they ate what they could afford. Red meat and sweets were a luxury they lapped up if they could get them, because mostly they couldn't. We just don't live in that world now.
 

---

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Genie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
At the end of the day, what contributes most to a person's weight, is how much that person eats.
<snip>
The best (and really only) way to lose weight is to eat less. Seems to me that the easiest thing to do is to look at what's on your plate every time you eat (assuming that you eat too much) and throw half of it into the bin before starting. If you do this, the potatoes will come off easily and walking/running/riding etc will be a much more pleasant experience.

---

In which case maybe you'd like to explain why, despite eating less than 1000 calories, drinking 3 litres of water, fidgeting at every opportunity, taking four flights of stairs twice, and walking 4 miles per day, I'm *gaining* weight?

---

If that is genuinely the case, you should probably see a doctor. Hypothyroidism will do that. Probably other things will too.

And in response to CC:

Look, what I say may well be a gross generalisation. But having watched my "I eat very little" mother graze all day for years, what goes in the mouth can sometimes be forgotten. For what it's worth, I think that donuts are an abomination unto the lord and I'd happily ban them from this earth. At the end of the day, people western society tend to eat too much and do too little.

Me included.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
[Slightly tangential]Heh heh. Went on a backpacking weekend the other week with my brother in law. Both of us have recently had to admit defeat and start buying 36" waist trousers, despite both being able to recall when 32" would fit fine

Haven't done it for *cough*mumble*cough* years, but nevertheless got out the maps and planned a route with the sort of mileage we used to do.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear...[/Slightly tangential]
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Look, what I say may well be a gross generalisation. But having watched my "I eat very little" mother graze all day for years, what goes in the mouth can sometimes be forgotten.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Walk to work. And back.

---

quote:

---

[qb]Walk up the stairs.

---

quote:

---

Walk to the supermarket and back.

---

quote:

---

Up until very recently, just feeding oneself required a lot of exercise. Drinking required going out to a river or a well (I'm not talking the last 50 years here, obviously).

Getting anywhere, likewise. Ride a horse instead of driving your car. The difference is a lot.

---

quote:

---

Humans used to do loads of exercise just doing day-to-day stuff and eat very little, by comparison to today. For starters, the food back past 100 years ago was not flash.

We can't have the yummy easy life and be svelte. It don't compute.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Look, what I say may well be a gross generalisation. But having watched my "I eat very little" mother graze all day for years, what goes in the mouth can sometimes be forgotten. For what it's worth, I think that donuts are an abomination unto the lord and I'd happily ban them from this earth. At the end of the day, people western society tend to eat too much and do too little.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
OK then, admit defeat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
If all you (in general, not you personally) need to do to control your weight is stop eating between meals, walk to work, and jog three times a week, you aren't really putting yourself to that much trouble. Anybody should be able to manage that. But there are people who have to live on lettuce and exercise like galley slaves to keep their weight under control, and such people don't deserve the condescension of people who don't really have a problem in that area.

---

Thank you CrookedCucumber, that's all I've been trying to say for years, only I do it with added hysteria.

Mr Rat used to be able to do that - minor adjustments in diet and exercise, just cutting out the mid-morning scone and adding an extra gym visit per week and the weight would fall off. Cue smug remarks about 'calories in, calories out' when I complained about my weight. Since he's turned 42, though, that has just stopped working. He now has to eat dramatically less and exercise to a ridiculous extent to shift any weight at all. And boy, you should hear him complain about it!

There's little more irritating than the same person who's lectured you on how easy it is to change your lifestyle and lose weight saying 'Oh come on, it's Saturday night, one little pizza can't hurt you'. No, one little treat can't hurt you. For me it will mean either starving tomorrow to make up, or humiliation on WeightWatchers night.

Of course I know that if I ate less and exercised more, and kept doing it, I'd eventually lose some weight. But I know from experience that the extent I have to go to to make any appreciable difference is so extreme that I simply don't care enough to keep it up. So it's only an aethestic, rather than health, issue after all. In the end, I'd rather have that little Saturday treat, and some enjoyable free time, than be skinny and gorgeous.

(Mind you, I can recommend breastfeeding for weight loss. If I'd known, I'd have bred years ago. I'm going to write a diet book and make a million.)
 

---

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I'm beginning to think it's one of those things we just can't talk about. I can say, truthfully, that I do an intense aerobic exercise tape that includes weight training and the equivalent of three miles of walking, six days a week, and someone will tell me that all I need to do is take the stairs instead of the elevator. I can say that I haven't had anything that contains sugar (or honey or corn syrup) in years and someone will tell me to cut out donuts. If I say I don't snack and only eat two meals a day then my portions must be too big. If I eat low-fat then the Atkins folk will tell me that's my problem, right there, and someone else will inform me that all fats aren't the same, you know. Yeah, I know.

I once had someone tell me that if I wasn't losing weight on a certain plan then I must be cheating. When it comes to passing judgement on other people the holier-than-thou skinnys don't hesitate to call the rest of us liars. It's all very simple in their minds.

People who wouldn't dream of passing judgement on someone else for their sex lives, or how often they go to church, or whether they seem to be tithing or not; look at someone's size and decide to make judgements about them. We have fat thighs? We're sinners.
 

---

Posted by Nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
1. People are different. I can remain reasonably fit and not too fat by careful eating and regular exercise. But some people can't. It's wrong to harangue these folks.

---

When people who can but won't control their diet start clogging the courts with lawsuits because some corporation made them fat, or cost tax payers millions in medical expenses, then they do deserve to be harangued. It is a matter of choice and many people make tough choices every day to keep themselves fit. Ruth has just admitted to making a conscious choice to avoid high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils ( good choice, btw). If enough people would make these choices, the food industry would change - it would have to just to survive. So it is actually the people who won't make the choice to eat healthy that make it more expensive for those of us who want to eat healthy. Maybe we should sue them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
LATA - there's nothing "easy" about being hungry to the point of feeling nauseous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Genie:
In which case maybe you'd like to explain why, despite eating less than 1000 calories, drinking 3 litres of water, fidgeting at every opportunity, taking four flights of stairs twice, and walking 4 miles per day, I'm *gaining* weight?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
In the end, I'd rather have that little Saturday treat, and some enjoyable free time, than be skinny and gorgeous.

(Mind you, I can recommend breastfeeding for weight loss. If I'd known, I'd have bred years ago. I'm going to write a diet book and make a million.)

---

We've seen your picture - you're a babe!

But I might have problems with the breastfeeding diet. Being mammarily challanged, so to speak.

There does come a point where you realise that losing weight is incompatible with enjoying life. I don't mean just eating lots of cakes, but, as you have said, taking a whole lot more of your time and energy in getting the pounds off. As the saying goes, you won't live longer, but it will feel like it.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Wait, you saying it's our fault that aisle after aisle of the superstore has nothing but junkfood on display?

The superstore itself is not to blame in any way whatsoever?

There is, i suppose, some merit in that argument but the way you are arguing sounds a bit far-fetched to me.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Nice, NP. If we can't lose weight and/or keep it off as easily as you, we must have a medical problem. You being the Gold Standard, of course, for human beings in general.
 

---

Posted by magdalenegospel (# 11619) on :
 
Twilight - I heartily sympathise.

I've battled with my weight for years, until I got told that I had hormone problems.

I discovered that the 'clearing half your plate' method wasn't the way forward, but I could eat lots and lots of certain foods till I became full, and didn't put on weight. Rice, of any sort, when plain boiled with some bouillon and vegetables, is now a staple. As are Quinoa and Millet.

The other thing I discovered was cutting out wheat helped. Not because I was allergic to wheat, but because the stuff that's used to make wheat palatable (Sugar, yeast, fat) was causing the problem.

Certain endocrine disorders relate to emotional problems - Stress for example will make us more apple-shaped, because of the raised cortisol levels, which also mean that we will store far more food as fat more rapidly.

So society's vicious circle of longer hours and food on the run will produce a stress reaction that means we pile on the pounds. It's one of the reasons that routines help. If the body knows it's going to get fed to a schedule (either by grazing, 6 meals a day whatever) then it will gear up for that. Evolution, see

I'm not a nutritionist, I'm not even slim, but I have managed to lose weight, and know why it's gone back on for me and how to keep losing it.

So there's all sorts of reasons people are overweight, and I got so fed up with people saying 'no one fat came out of Belsen' (to which the retort was 'but some fat people died sooner than others' when I realised) as a child/adolescent.

There are two interesting strands to this thread "This doesn't work for me" and "These are the social issues involved".
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Amazing isn't it?

NP - I know I haven't got a medical condition. I just feel sick when I'm hungry. Always have done. I feel hungry because I'm trying to limit how much I eat.
 

---

Posted by Genie (# 3282) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Genie:
In which case maybe you'd like to explain why, despite eating less than 1000 calories, drinking 3 litres of water, fidgeting at every opportunity, taking four flights of stairs twice, and walking 4 miles per day, I'm *gaining* weight?

---

If you are gaining weight on 1000 calories a day and getting all of that exercise then there are a few possibilities.
Your diet is too low in fat and causing your body to compensate by creating fat from food that would normally be used for energy.
Your weight gain is from muscle: Muscle weighs 3 to 4 times that of fat.
You are retaining massive amounts of water.
Your 1000 calories comes from lettuce leaves naturally high in gamma radiation, your name is David Bruce Banner, and we wouldn't like you when you are angry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Genie:
My diet has contatined an average of 27g of fat per day over the last two weeks. That comprises 25% of my calorie intake (average 994 per day over the past two weeks). Retaining water doesn't happen when you're drinking water and keeping the sodium down. I have virtually no muscle at all. My calories come from fruit, vegetables, bulgur wheat, cereal, skimmed milk, no more than two slices of low GI bread and no more than 4oz of lean meat/protein per day. As far as medical problems go, I had a blood test this morning to rule out anaemia and hypothyroidism. My doctor is expecting both to come back negative. Not that it's any of your business, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
When it comes to passing judgement on other people the holier-than-thou skinnys don't hesitate to call the rest of us liars. It's all very simple in their minds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Wait, you saying it's our fault that aisle after aisle of the superstore has nothing but junkfood on display?

The superstore itself is not to blame in any way whatsoever?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Nice, NP. If we can't lose weight and/or keep it off as easily as you, we must have a medical problem. You being the Gold Standard, of course, for human beings in general.

---

quote:

---

So you are either an anomaly or something is wrong - either with your diet, your body, or your accounting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Wait, you saying it's our fault that aisle after aisle of the superstore has nothing but junkfood on display?

The superstore itself is not to blame in any way whatsoever?

---

Would the superstore carry all that junk food if people didn't buy it? The people who invest their money to open the superstore are not doing it so they can be your daddy. They are doing it so they can make money. They make money by selling products that are in demand, not by forcing people to buy broccoli instead of gummy bears.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I'm sure we all know people who can eat like a hobbit, but not put on any weight. Whatever the reason for it, they do exist.

---

quote:

---

So why is it so hard to accept that some people may eat like Gollum, and still not lose weight

---

quote:

---

....almost one-half of those surveyed said they buy foods that are bad for them, even after they read the nutrition label....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You're not a professional nutritionist, so it's best not to imagine that you know enough to pronounce with such surety. There may well be things that you don't know. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The grocery stores have everything from junk to jewels and it's mostly just a matter of preference.

---

More junk than jewels. Seriously, check out the bread aisle next time you shop -- it's insane what they put into bread. Then look at all the pasta sauces; I've found exactly one brand in my local grocery store that isn't full of crap. Yeah, yeah, I should make my own pasta sauce, and I frequently do. But lots of people really don't have time.

It really matters where you live, too. If you live in the inner city, you may live miles away from a good grocery store with a reasonable selection of healthy food, especially produce.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
RuthW

I happen to have many "inner city" friends that shop at what were once loosely referred to as "Ranch Markets" (i.e. Jons) where one can get fairly good produce dirt cheap. I know because I will often drive into the "inner city" to get cheap produce from Jons.

I don't eat a lot of bread so I can't speak to it too much, but the Teutonic Goddess does, and I usually can find a healthy option at my local Ralph's just fine. I will admit that I was not checking the fat label but I was able to get "Granola Rice 300 Grain-Horsefeed Whole Wheat Brick bread" every time I have looked for her. I also was able to buy nice "FreshMade French Properly Bleached White Sourdough" for myself and the costs were not that outrageous.

And Judas, one can't find the time to make ones own pasta sauce!!!!? That's absurd! I can make Pasta Sauce in the same amount of time I can open a jar of Prego for Zeus sake! Open can of tomato paste, add italian spices, olive oil. Done. I don't even measure.

I think you demonstrate part of the problem. People think "Oh I don't have time" when they really mean, "I want this time to watch TV" or whatever. I am by all accounts busier than shit (3 hour commute anyone?) and I find time to cook when I choose to. This really isn't about whether the Supermarket/Marketing/MiltaryIndustrialComplex is screwing us. It's about us making choices, fat and happy, or otherwise.

If one wants to die fat and happy, die fat and happy. If one wants to do otherwise, get off one's ass and go for a walk and cook one's own damn pasta sauce!
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
I think Gwai is correct. I believe that being extremely skinny is unhealthy and abnormal.

This is true for men, but more so for women, who need a higher percentage of body fat then do men.

Besides, womenly curves are not exactly ugly.

[ 06. July 2006, 18:34: Message edited by: Papio ]
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
In America, the handcrafted beers are generally way more expensive than mass produced wee-wee. And yet both are very popular. People that can afford the good stuff buy the good stuff. People that can't (or have no taste) buy "Rocky Mountain Goat Piss" Coors. In America we have the full spread of quality versus cheap on almost everything. The grocery stores have everything from junk to jewels and it's mostly just a matter of preference. I can get Healthy Choice Dinners or Nacho Cheese Dorito Goodness at the same store. Our vegetable aisles have food from all over the world, often at reasonable prices if you shop carefully.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Just because I can borrow £125,000, simply because I can't resist borrowing £125,000 ... does that make it the Bank's fault if I keep raiding the candy store?

Likewise it troubles me that some obese people have started looking beyond their minds and mouths to the name on the packet for someone to blame and sue for their own lack of self control. Are we creating a society of helpless victims who will do anything EXCEPT look at their own behaviours?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I'm sure we all know people who can eat like a hobbit, but not put on any weight. Whatever the reason for it, they do exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Telepath:
Maybe it would help to approach the problem the other way around. If there were something we could say that wouldn't be the words of insensitive, smug bastards, what would it be? What answer would satisfy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
OK then, admit defeat.

---

Oh but I haven't. I'm just pointing out that your "oh so easy" solutions aren't easy, simple or practicable for many people. Your "eat less and take more exercise" regime is naive and insulting to those who are already trying it and finding it doesn't work.

---

quote:

---

I think that would rather depend what the question was! Generally I find that it's unsolicited advice and comments that irritate.

---

quote:

---

But fat and unfitness are such despised things in our culture, everybody feels entitled to assume the worst about anybody less svelte than them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Look, what I say may well be a gross generalisation. But having watched my "I eat very little" mother graze all day for years, what goes in the mouth can sometimes be forgotten.

---

Well, I know it isn't with me. I'm at work all day and have nowhere to graze. It's lunch and that's it. Only if I'm feeling faint with hunger, which does occasionally happen. I sometimes get a snack. That's the exception. At home it's my tea and that's it. Nothing else.

And yet I'm gaining.

---

Welcome to middle age (sorry Karl)!

There is, as I understand, an actual metabolic change in men (and perhaps women) somewhere between 40 and 50. It is literally true that you can exercise and eat exactly as before and once past that point, where you once maintained a steady weight, you now gain. Haven't quite figured out how to deal with it mind.

John
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
In answer to something posted ages ago: chicken nuggets are not remotely less expensive than real chicken, they're just easier than real chicken.

Right now, chicken breasts (the most expensive way to buy chicken) are around 6 bucks a pound, and 4 if you don't mind taking it off the bones yourself, and less if you use dark meat as well. With a pound and a half of chicken, I can bread and bake very yummy chicken "tenders" for my whole family. It's just that nobody knows how to cook any more, and they don't teach it. If you can cook, you can save immense quantities of money.

And Ruth: you can make pasta sauce that doesn't have high-fructose corn syrup and awful additives in large quantity and then store it in about 30 small containers (like zip-loc bags) for easy defrosting and use on that whole-wheat pasta we all adore so much.

I love, love, love cooking, though, so I realize not everyone shares that pleasure. And before anyone says they work too hard, I have 3 kids and also work. With planning, you can have much cheaper healthier food at home. Saving Dinner is a great place to start.
 

---

Posted by Genie (# 3282) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You're not a professional nutritionist, so it's best not to imagine that you know enough to pronounce with such surety. There may well be things that you don't know.

---

I don't have to be a professional to know that someone gaining weight on a 1000 calorie diet is an anomaly in and of itself, but once you add a 600 calorie/day exercise regime - she should be dead in a week, dude. If she is gaining weight on 1000 calories/day then we need to isolate why and inject it into all the starving third-worlders that are wasting away from 1000-1500 calorie /day diets.

If you can find me something to dispute that, please let me know. I've just spent 3 hours trying to find an incident of someone gaining weight on a 1,000 calorie diet and have yet to find anything - other than Genie, that is. Do you have any concept as to how little food is involved in 1000 calories? 2TBS of peanut butter is almost 200 calories, 4 oz of meat is around 270-300. I'm sorry, but there is something she is not telling us because either her diet is wrong, her body is malfunctioning, or professional nutritionists and the WHO are absolutely full of shistky and should be the first against the wall when the revolution begins. [/QB]

---

• 7am: one slice of toasted low GI bread with a teaspoon of reduced sugar jam: 130 calories
• 10am: 8 almonds: 55 calories
• 1pm: smoked salmon and mustard sandwich, and half a grapefruit: 201 calories
• 3pm: 5 prunes: 59 calories
• 7pm: chicken fajitas with salad (including 2.5oz of chicken): 290 calories
• 10pm: oatcake and hot chocolate: 80 calories

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
2. Genie: One day and even one week is not enough to see the results of a low calorie diet. The one you are on is really, really low, if you are trying to maintain that over any length of time. But even at that low rate, one day will show no difference at all. You could gain or lose 2 pounds in a day and it means nothing.

Over a couple of weeks, you'd expect to see a drop, but it's a long process.

Why so low-calorie? (If it's not a rude question)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Telepath:
That's why unsolicited advice is usually considered rude.

---

quote:

---

Hmmm. I used to be very skinny, in my youth. On a daily basis I would have people telling me that I MUST be anorexic, I MUST be. It wasn't only stupid children who didn't know any better, it was sophisticated adults who definitely should have known better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:


Suggestions on a postcard, please.

---

Fidget more? I'm overweight & do a desk job but have recently tried to reeducate myself to fidget more at my desk, usually by tapping my foot on the floor. It helps to reduce tension and seems to have stopped my weight increasing; best of all, it annoys the hell out of the guy in the room beneath me!

I can relate to what you said about being bullied by the jocks at school; I hated PE and Games for the same reason - I was always the last to be picked for teams and had two perpetual left feet. Although I'm in a gym, I to my shame rarely go and if I do it's usually to use the pool (for which read sauna!) as I generally loathe exercise.

But, in addition to the fidgetting above, I've also acquired one of those pedometers and am consciously making the effort to up the amount of walking I do each day. Now, walking I do enjoy; it burns the calories and keeps you reasonably fit without seriously overtaxing the body and leaving you gasping. So, that's another suggestion I guess
 

---

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I believe you, Genie!

My mother once joined Weight Watchers and followed their 1000 calorie plan (it was different in the 60's) to the letter. I would watch her weigh and measure every bite. "Ladies" didn't do much exercise back then but she was on the go with her rose garden, sewing projects and the PTA from dawn till dark. She actually gained weight. I did it with her one week and lost six pounds. That's a skinny teenager for you.

We don't hear about the people like Genie and my mother because it doesn't sell diet books and magazines. Instead they use the one or two people who have amazing results and then print "results not typical" in small letters at the bottom of the screen.

There have been cases of women in survival situations of no food at all over several months losing little or nothing. During the first season of the "Survivor" TV show Sue Hawk lost 4 pounds while the others lost 40 to 60 pounds on the same starvation diet of rats and snakes. Women in particular seem to be able to hang on to weight in starvation situations for much longer than men. Probably to keep babies alive during spells of famine. They can't go without food forever but they can for several months.
It is not just "calories in calories out" for everyone.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
...although it remains an abiding mystery as to why Hurley doesn't seem to have shed any lbs in Lost.

Re pedometers: mine's showing only 1500 steps (out of the recommended 10,000) and it's already lunchtime!
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Well, it's always "calories in/calories out", in the sense that if you take in 500 calories, and expend 700, you have to lose 200 from somewhere - fat or glycogen. But what happens is that in "starvation" mode, the metabolism pares expenditure to a minimum, so that a person may find that although they only take in 1000 calories, amazingly their body adjusts so that they only spend 900. The other 100 become weight gain.

If we could find a way to feed any creature 500 calories and get 700 calories of work out of it without it getting thinner, we'd be able to solve our energy problems by feeding them fat and then rendering down their fat - we'd get more than we put in

[ 07. July 2006, 11:53: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Genie, if you're eating below 1000 calories/day, then your body has probably gone into starvation mode , which seriously slows your weightloss, to negligable amounts (if that) for a while, until you've burnt off all your muscle. So it's a really bad thing for your body and your health, and you don't lose much weight for a long time on it.

You mentioned your doctor earlier - I'm not asking this to get a response from you, but does (s)he know how many calories/day you're consuming? If not, perhaps talking to him/her about dieting and good numbers of calories etc. might help.

Sarkycow
 

---

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Do you think anyone chooses to be fat?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Do you think anyone chooses to be fat?

---

That must be the stupidest question anyone has asked this year.

Eating is a voluntary action in human beings.

---

Eating is. Getting overweight isn't. I would hope that no-one's going to make a naive and simplistic equivalent between the two at this stage in the thread.
 

---

Posted by Nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
I too was raised to clear my plate - thats why certain diets work better for me (like Atkins) because I control what I put on plate. When I'm not on a diet, I go for seconds etc. The killer for me is all-you-can-eat buffets. For some reason, knowing I can eat as much as I want for less than $10 sends me into a feeding frenzy. And the more expensive the buffet, the more I think I have to eat - as the people here could affirm.
 

---

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Eating is. Getting overweight isn't. I would hope that no-one's going to make a naive and simplistic equivalent between the two at this stage in the thread.

---

quote:

---

I could go on (I have gone on) but it's time for lunch...

---

/tangent
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
The equation of calories in / calories burnt is very simple.

P
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
The equation of calories in / calories burnt is very simple.

P

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
The equation of calories in / calories burnt is very simple.

P

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Eating is. Getting overweight isn't. I would hope that no-one's going to make a naive and simplistic equivalent between the two at this stage in the thread.

---

Eat too much = get fat.

Happy to oblige.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
The equation of calories in / calories burnt is very simple.

P

---

Yes. Human pychology is, however, rarely very simple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nonpropheteer:
I too was raised to clear my plate - thats why certain diets work better for me (like Atkins) because I control what I put on plate. When I'm not on a diet, I go for seconds etc.

---

Why do we have to be on a specific diet regime to not over-eat? I've always found that it's much easier to make small, realistic changes in my eating habits than to go from one extreme (the legalistic diet) to the other (gorging myself). For example, I've just sort of committed to eating smaller portions.

When we go out to eat at an American, here's-more-food-than-you-eat-in-a-week restaurant, we split a plate. We end up feeling satisfied at the end of the meal instead of feeling like we need to be rolled home.

Also, NP, you might try avoiding buffets. Not only do they make people feel like they have to "get their money's worth," the nutritional value of the food in them leaves much to be desired.

But the soft serve ice cream is soooooooo tempting!
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Hosting

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Doesn't he have a bridge to hide under?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sorry. Let me try again.

FB - do you have a serious point to make?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Sorry. Let me try again.

FB - do you have a serious point to make?

---

Sure do. We live in a society in which over-consumption and obesity have become socially acceptable, so there is less incentive than before to eat normally, exercise and be thin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But there are many people who eat normally - indeed are half starved - exercise and aren't thin.

---

quote:

---

My problem with your statements is the implication that if one does these things, one will be thin, and therefore overweight people are all greedy slobs who deserve to be fat. But you're not saying that, are you?

---

Yes I am.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
So let me get this straight. Someone eats less than 1000 calories a day. They exercise. They're still gaining weight.

And you think they're a greedy slob? I defy you to survive on what Genie's eating.
 

---

Posted by muchafraid (# 10738) on :
 
What I'm wondering, FB, is what you would say to someone suffering from hyperthyriodism or thyroid cancer?

Certainly their weight gain isn't due to slobbishness...
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Yep, people gain weight for all sorts of reasons. Some, like me, because they're gutbuckets, but others for reasons (psychological and/ or physical) way beyond their control - and FB's response is to laugh at them?! Words fail.

As a side note, the only time I've managed to lose weight recently is by giving up the booze for Lent (lost 5lbs)...which kind of suggests I drink too much...

[Splenig ]

[ 07. July 2006, 15:33: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on :
 
Ah yes, the 'hidden' calories in booze.

I think the problem is that those with cancer, thyroid problems etc are actually the minority, and it's more common to hear the blame game, cf. suing McDonalds, I have no time (but I do know what's happening in Eastenders) and people explaining that the problem is they get out of breath when exercising (really? that's not like the point or anything ) .

C'mon shipmates, let's be honest, the latter, not the former is the more prevalent malaise that is affecting the West. (Whereas, obviously everyone here on the ship has a genuine excuse for not looking like Elle McPherson or Brad Pitt )
 

---

Posted by muchafraid (# 10738) on :
 
Cancer or candy, it's not right to laugh at someone who is overweight.
 

---

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by muchafraid:
What I'm wondering, FB, is what you would say to someone suffering from hyperthyriodism or thyroid cancer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by muchafraid:
It's not right to laugh at someone who is overweight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[qb]But there are many people who eat normally - indeed are half starved - exercise and aren't thin.

---

Funny how none of them live in Malawi though, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by muchafraid:
Or, we could try finding a solution to the problem.

---

quote:

---

As far as people and diets are concerned - how much caffeine do people consume that are overweight?

---

It probably goes hand-in-hand with the fact that most of the products containing caffeine also contain loads of sugar

Soda has always been my enemy. I always thought it was just because of the sugar/carb content. But you're right, it probably also has something to do with the caffeine. Never thought of that before.

[ 07. July 2006, 16:32: Message edited by: muchafraid ]
 

---

Posted by magdalenegospel (# 11619) on :
 
Artificial sweeteners also screw up insulin levels, and induce cravings, and those are in Squash/Soda in abundance.

I tend to be better off using apple juice to sweeten things, or a little honey.
 

---

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Let's assume Fiddleback is right and all the heavy people secretly eat two dozen glazed doughnuts and a half-gallon Premium Pralines and Carmel ice-cream with hot fudge sauce every night.(My personal fantasy.)

Why not? Why do they deserve ridicule and censure? Why can't we accept the fact that some people are large and some are small the way we accept blue eyes and dark eyes, tall and short, musical and tone deaf?
 

---

Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on :
 

quote:

---

Why can't we accept the fact that some people are large and some are small the way we accept blue eyes and dark eyes, tall and short, musical and tone deaf?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Funny how none of them live in Malawi though, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But there are many people who eat normally - indeed are half starved - exercise and aren't thin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:

quote:

---

Why can't we accept the fact that some people are large and some are small the way we accept blue eyes and dark eyes, tall and short, musical and tone deaf?

---

Well, Twilight, apart from it being bad for their health and society paying the cost of that (which is a glib answer, but possibly the one Fiddleback is thinking of - I'm not sure if he's from the UK or not and so whether or not he has a state-funded healthcare system that he doesn't want abused - I disgress), their friends and family have to cope with the impact of obesity on that person's life, which may involve stuff like small children not being able to play with their (grand)parent, through to trips, walks, excursions, in fact, daily living being restricted by the person's immobility, with the extreme of seeing them get self-induced illnesses, e.g. type 2 diabetes, which then cause them pain, discomfort, illness and depression - which the friends and family are obviously sympathetic to but also grieved by and hurt by as it's self inflicted. Extreme obesity can have a similar impact on a family as that tragic sight of a life-long smoker who still smokes despite having had lung-cancer etc etc. and who's got a voice box replacement. The difference is, although there may be psychological reasons for over-eating, food in itself is not addictive like nicotine, but that doesn't mean there aren't grounds for CBT etc.

My heart aches everytime my father-in-law loads his plate with cakes/cream/butter whatever, having just taken his insulin, and send an SOS prayer to God that he'll let him live to at least see his first grandchild, who we're planning but haven't conceived yet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
My heart aches everytime my father-in-law loads his plate with cakes/cream/butter whatever, having just taken his insulin, and send an SOS prayer to God that he'll let him live to at least see his first grandchild, who we're planning but haven't conceived yet.

---

• I believe that losing or maintaining weight is more difficult for some people than for others, so smugness should be kept to a minimum.
• I think that when people, for whatever reason that seems good to them, prioritise other things above exercise and diet, they are making a valid choice and do not need to be patronised, lectured or told that not enjoying exercise is something they'd get over if only they tried harder.
• I agree with Twilight.
• I agree with what Telepath said about an eating-disordered society. Food simply should not be so fraught.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat and trimmed by OliviaG:

• I believe that losing or maintaining weight is more difficult for some people than for others, so smugness should be kept to a minimum.
• I think that when people, for whatever reason that seems good to them, prioritise other things above exercise and diet, they are making a valid choice and do not need to be patronised, lectured or told that not enjoying exercise is something they'd get over if only they tried harder.

---

Great summary, Rat. I would add that it seems to me very presumptuous for another person to assume they how and why an individual deals with these two points, since there are so many factors that may be private and hence unknown.

And I'm amazed that we made it to Page 6 without anyone saying gluttony is a sin. ITTWACW.

OliviaG
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by muchafraid:
Anyone else ready to move on?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Why not? Why do they deserve ridicule and censure?

---

quote:

---

this trainwreck of a thread

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Why not? Why do they deserve ridicule and censure?

---

Because we think they shouldn't be fat, of course. This is why I also point my finger, throw my head back and have a good, hearty laugh at the people in my office who smoke, the kids I treat who are addicted to heroin*, and anyone who speeds, jaywalks, bungee jumps or does rockclimbing. Don't they know how unsafe they are? Well, they will when they hear us cackle.

-Digory

*Oh man, there was this one girl that I was working with, 21 and with a kid, who was completely addicted to heroin and cocaine. Boy did I ever laugh in her face! Her arms were covered in abscesses and sores and she lived on the streets. How else would she have ever been motivated to change if it weren't for me laughing and pointing and making fun?

Apparently I should have laughed more though, because she died about a month ago. So now I just laugh in her mom's face, hoping that will help to make sure that she doesn't have any more loser drug-addict kids who die in the streets of Baltimore.

Ridicule is the only motivator we have, after all.

---

quote:

---

Er... lets try this again shall we? Food, unlike heroin, is NOT addictive. Being fat is a result of choice. It is anti-social. To compare yourself and your roly-poly chums to heroin addicts in your search for sympathy really is quite contemptible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Er... lets try this again shall we? Food, unlike heroin, is NOT addictive. Being fat is a result of choice. It is anti-social. To compare yourself and your roly-poly chums to heroin addicts in your search for sympathy really is quite contemptible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Er... lets try this again shall we? Food, unlike heroin, is NOT addictive. Being fat is a result of choice. It is anti-social. To compare yourself and your roly-poly chums to heroin addicts in your search for sympathy really is quite contemptible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Er... lets try this again shall we? Food, unlike heroin, is NOT addictive. Being fat is a result of choice. It is anti-social. To compare yourself and your roly-poly chums to heroin addicts in your search for sympathy really is quite contemptible.

---

Ah, good. I have been waiting to see if Fiddleback would repeat this tiresome, judgemental, crap that he has posted in every single thread he can about this sensitive subject. This is truly the most ignorant, bigoted statement I have read in ages on the ship. Well done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Can't someone please call him to hell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Er... lets try this again shall we? Food, unlike heroin, is NOT addictive. Being fat is a result of choice. It is anti-social. To compare yourself and your roly-poly chums to heroin addicts in your search for sympathy really is quite contemptible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nonpropheteer:
Sugar is addictive. That is one reason it is the first thing to go when you start dieting, and it is the cause of most people's relapse. Once your body is used to a certain level of sugar, it causes cravings so as to maintain those levels. Heavy users frequently suffer withdrawal symptoms from lack of sugar.

---

quote:

---

As for overeating being anti-social -bollocks. Im my experience more people overeat at social gatherings than on their own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Hosting

Papio, magdalenegospel, and Rat: Either call Fiddleback to Hell or don't. But don't personalize your dispute with Fiddleback in Purgatory while you're trying to decide.

RuthW
Purgatory host

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Er... lets try this again shall we? Food, unlike heroin, is NOT addictive. Being fat is a result of choice. It is anti-social. To compare yourself and your roly-poly chums to heroin addicts in your search for sympathy really is quite contemptible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Interesting that the discussion is far more heated about weight than finances. Why is that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
Why not ridicule the speeders and the jaywalkers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
I do, if there is is something funny about them. I defy anybody to put "fatman funny" into Google Images and not find something to laugh about. Fat people, indeed any grotesques have been thought funny for thousands of years.

---

quote:

---

The reason people are fat in the Western World is that, for 99% of them, they eat and drink too much much and do too little exercise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
People have found humor in others' misfortune since forever...

---

But, of course! All good humour is based on the misfortunes of others. People can laugh at my big belly all they want, I'm proud of that puppy! I was tired of looking at my ugly feet and did something about it.

Oddly enough, it only swells when I'm into drinking beer [which I haven't been interested in for a couple of years], so it's shrunken considerably. Nothing else about my lifestyle has changed; still burn off massive amounts of calories on the job and park my sedentary backside in the evenings.

I don't understand the attraction to eating mass quantities. What's so interesting about ingesting animal and plant matter through a hole in your face? Nevermind the disgusting result a few hours later! Yuck! It's a nuisance and a chore, IMO. Somedays, I won't bother eating anything till the evening when the growling gets my attention. Maybe it's the large volumes of water I drink that kill the appetite. I hover around 215 lbs. and I'm perfectly comfortable with it.

[eta: I don't owe a blessed soul a single dime, even the $28 electric bill is paid. ]

[ 09. July 2006, 00:00: Message edited by: Gort ]
 

---

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Coming back to Britain for a few weeks after living in New Zealand, I am struck by the amount of 'victim mentality' to be observed in people around me.

When an accident happens, or some unplanned state of affairs (such as obesity) results, firstly there must be someone to blame. Secondly, the victim is seen as a morally good person, simply by virtue of being a victim.

This view of things lacks the mechanism for a person to choose to do a morally good act. According to this view, morally good people don't act. Things happen to them.

So if a person buys TV dinners from Tesco even though he has the vague idea that they're bad for him, it's entirely Tesco's fault.

Fitness is easy for me. OK, I cook from scratch, drink relatively little, and cycle about twenty miles a day. I am stick thin. If I wasn't doing any of those things I suspect that I would still be thin, although I would feel less healthy.

But it seems perfectly obvious to me that I am an exception; as a general rule 1) a normal balanced diet (and not any of this Atkins bollocks) combined with 2) regular exercise is going to result in a person not being overweight.

When my (formerly) fat neighbour's father had a heart attack my neighbour cut down on the booze, cut out bad food from his diet and, to use a Tebbitism - he got on his bike. The pounds fell off him. He got a grip - plain and simple.

I should add that I think it's perfectly possible to be a healthy fat person, just as it is possible to be healthy and very thin as I am.

[ 09. July 2006, 10:22: Message edited by: Cod ]
 

---

Posted by ladyinred (# 10688) on :
 
Just a thought I am going to throw in here, that I don't know exactly what to make of, but anyway...

i am interested by the references in this thread to people's weight problems in the 'West'. The reason i bring this up is that obesity is practically non-existent in the Western country that I live in ie France. You very very rarely see extremely overweight people here - it just doesn't exist. True, you don't see overweight people in Mali, but I think it's more interesting that you don't see them in France And it's not like the French don't eat a lot of food - the average French day is a small breakfast (bread and coffee), enormous lunch (meat and 2 veg, bread, salad, cheese etc) possibly an afternoon snack and light evening meal.

i suspect there are a couple of reasons for this. French people, i think, are more likely to know how to cook and use proper ingredients, and they appreciate quality over mere cheapness. Because people are brought up eating right and using good healthy ingredients, they never start the cycle of going on diets and confusing their metabolisms. Also they are more likely to sit down at the table and take their time over the meal instead of eating on the run (someone did a very interesting experiment once - I heard it on radio 4 so it must be true - they went in McDonalds restaurants in the US and in France and timed how long it takes people to eat the meal. The average French person takes twice as long to eat the food).

But I really think the main reason French people can eat a lot of food and maintain a healthy weight is that they just don't have all the hang-ups about food that Anglo-saxons seem to have. They know how to enjoy food without feeling remotely guilty about it and have a healthy respect for it. Food is their good friend and they have a long and happy cooperation

Red x

/hope this isn't too tangential but thought it was worth bringing up
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
If you start making your own food instead of letting others process your meals for you, stop shovelling it in your gob whilst Big Brother is on and also start moving your legs once in a while during the day, then (if you don't drink a bottle of wine or six GIN's a day) you probably won't get too fat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ladyinred:
i am interested by the references in this thread to people's weight problems in the 'West'. The reason i bring this up is that obesity is practically non-existent in the Western country that I live in ie France. You very very rarely see extremely overweight people here - it just doesn't exist. True, you don't see overweight people in Mali, but I think it's more interesting that you don't see them in France And it's not like the French don't eat a lot of food - the average French day is a small breakfast (bread and coffee), enormous lunch (meat and 2 veg, bread, salad, cheese etc) possibly an afternoon snack and light evening meal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
I have yet to see an argument for how laughing in someone's face helps them or motivates them to be less fat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
I have yet to see an argument for how laughing in someone's face helps them or motivates them to be less fat.

---

Although I have already given you the example of Nigella's dad. He got so fed up with the Hon member for Bolsover shouting out "Who ate all the pies?" every time he stood up in the House, he did something about it and lost weight. It does work, I promise you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professor kirke:
I have yet to see an argument for how laughing in someone's face helps them or motivates them to be less fat.

---

Although I have already given you the example of Nigella's dad. He got so fed up with the Hon member for Bolsover shouting out "Who ate all the pies?" every time he stood up in the House, he did something about it and lost weight. It does work, I promise you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ladyinred:
The reason i bring this up is that obesity is practically non-existent in the Western country that I live in ie France. You very very rarely see extremely overweight people here - it just doesn't exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xSx:
I wonder if there's also something in the fact that the main meal in France (and Spain as well, which IIRC also has fewer obese people than the Uk and USA) is taken at midday, rather than in the evening? I have heard/read some things that said that eating late at night results in more weight gain because the body doesn't digest properly before we go to sleep.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M.:
I don't quite understand the 'it's expensive to eat healthily' comments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The other side of this is that it is expensive in time, not just cash. If people are working long hours, with little money coming in, they may not have the time to prepare healthy meals, and so the ready prepared ones are easier.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LatePaul:
Nigel Lawson decided to lose weight when his doctor scared him with stories of what might happen if he carried on as he was.

---

I'm sure Mr Skinner assisted him in making that decision. Anyway he made the rest of us laugh.

[fixed code]

[ 09. July 2006, 20:51: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
I agree, Fiddleback, it doesn't take much time to prepare healthy meals.

How long does it take to make a salad? Or a stir fry? No longer than it takes to put a packet in the microwave or oven and wait.

M.
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
On the other hand, unhealthy meals can take ages.

I have just spent 20 minutes boning a duck. It is now spread out like a coverlet in the oven, thereby generating the greatest amount of crispy roast duck skin. Presently I will go an do tricky things with tins of scalding fat, to retrieve the meat juices and then proceed to do further things with orange juice, rowan jelly and kumquats.

The resultant meal will be fresh & home-cooked and pretty damn fattening, particularly when you add in the wine and the strawberries-and-cream dessert.

There is such a thing as liking food - the taste and the texture and the sheer sensuality of it all. My senses are where I live - colour and sound and smell and touch.

I have had to live, as most of do, an unsensual or countersensual life - working in ugly, arid offices, travelling in discomfort, making do with food that tastes of little but additives.

Am I unfit/overweight? Undoubtedly. But could I have lived another way? I don't honestly think so.

[ 09. July 2006, 18:19: Message edited by: Firenze ]
 

---

Posted by Duck (# 10181) on :
 
I think it also takes a bit of knowing what you are doing to cook healthily.

Being a student, i don't have a lot of money for food. I'm vegan, so no expensive animal protein. I do get an organic vegbox delivered (about £4/week), and between that & the 'slightly squashed' shelf of the supermarket i get lots of fruit & veg. If you are confident in your cooking ability, this is not a problem - even if i don't recognise or name everything i'm eating, i'm fairly sure of how to make it edible, at least by 'boil or bake 'till squidgy-ish, taste, add curry paste if necessary'. But someone who's not been brought up knowing how to cook from scratch couldn't do that.
Similarly, my main protein sources are beans, pulses & nuts - cheap, fairly easy & tasty once you know where to buy & how to cook, but if you don't then you can give yourself nasty food poisoning, and a jar of lentils doesn't look very much like a meal to start off with [awaits inevitable anti-veggie comments].
Ready meals are just less intimidating if that's what you are used to, and if you've not cooked an easy tomato & lentil sauce before it'll take a lot longer to prepare, need a lot more clearing up, and the end result the first few times you cook it probably won't be that great either, if you're unlucky to the point of being inedible so that's the price of the meal & time wasted - in that situation ready meals do look like the most sensible option.

I'm not saying this is a problem for everyone, but i do think that for some it is. In the area of South Wales for which my Mum is a Health Visitor [community nurse specialising in mothers & young children], the teenage pregnancy rate is very high. A few years ago then at least the local youngsters would get Sunday Lunch with their grandparents, but now even that's less common with multiple generations of teenage parents - and cookery isn't often taught in schools, and even if it is then it's turned into studying Food Technology instead of how to make dinner.


X-post - backs away from Firenze looking worried

[ 09. July 2006, 18:28: Message edited by: Duck ]
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by M.:
How long does it take to make a salad? Or a stir fry? No longer than it takes to put a packet in the microwave or oven and wait.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
On the other hand, unhealthy meals can take ages.

I have just spent 20 minutes boning a duck. It is now spread out like a coverlet in the oven, thereby generating the greatest amount of crispy roast duck skin. Presently I will go an do tricky things with tins of scalding fat, to retrieve the meat juices and then proceed to do further things with orange juice, rowan jelly and kumquats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M.:
I agree, Fiddleback, it doesn't take much time to prepare healthy meals.

How long does it take to make a salad? Or a stir fry? No longer than it takes to put a packet in the microwave or oven and wait.

M.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M.:
I don't quite understand the 'it's expensive to eat healthily' comments.

In my own experience (and that's all it is, I make no universal claims), it is much cheaper to buy good basic ingredients and cook them than to buy ready-made meals.

---

quote:

---

You know what? It's just a hobby. There is nothing that makes my 30-mile weekend long runs morally better or worse than a friend spending the time watching Stargate. I haven't all of a sudden got stupider, and nor am i some sort of a superhuman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rosamundi:
I could repeat this exercise for the chilli con carne I'm having tonight, the chicken soup in the freezer, etc and so on, but I don't think I need to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
Ooh, Firenze! I could be round in about 20 minutes, you know, if you've got any spare!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Telepath:
Everyone knows that a healthy lifestyle involves getting up at 4am, a quick wash in a bucket of cold slime, and a good invigorating three-hour workout at the hateful activity of your choice, because being miserable builds character.

Then it's home for a nourishing bowl of birdseed slightly softened in tepid water, and some camomile tea - none of that nasty old caffeine for you! For a special treat, to stave off those midmorning cravings, you are allowed a nice bar of high-fructose diet cardboard. Remember, a treat isn't a treat unless the faintest semblance of food content has been removed and replaced with industrial substitutes.

If you're really, really good, one day you might even get your poo critiqued on national television! This is the great reward for which many strive, but few can hope to attain.

You're happier than ever on this regime... and yet, every day, inexplicably, your irrational hatred for the French gets stronger and stronger. They think they're so smart, with their leisurely meals and poncey runney cheeses? With their delicious desserts made out of highest-quality dark chocolate, decadent eggs, whole milk, and a whisper of sugar... Don't they know they should be eating the LOW FAT version, that comes in plastic protuberances of four, and does not take up valuable preparation time that you would otherwise spend ironing your hair shirt for the good of humanity? And DON'T THEY KNOW THEY SHOULD BE FAT?!??? DON'T THEY KNOW THAT IF YOU GET TOO HAPPY, SOMEBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD HAS TO BE MISERABLE? THEY'RE RUINING YOUR LIFE!!!

---

Telepath:

Firenze: Last weekend we roasted a duck and served it with an apricot and ginger sauce. It was very nice, but the sauce was a bit oversweet and could have done with a touch of acidity. I'll remember the kumquats.
 

---

Posted by xSx (# 7210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by M.:
How long does it take to make a salad? Or a stir fry? No longer than it takes to put a packet in the microwave or oven and wait.

---

It's quick doing the stir-frying, but before you do that, you have to chop everything up, before which you have to wash it and de-seed it (if it has seeds), etc.

If you think it's as quick to fix a microwave meal as it is to fix a stir-fry, I'd have to conclude you've never actually fixed a stir-fry.

---

Can you buy ready-to-cook stir fry where you are Mousethief? I often do that now instead of buying a more typical ready meal, because it's about the same price. It's like a salad in a bag, but with bak choi, beansprouts, etc. etc.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Sure, you can buy ready-to-go stir-fry vegetables in the states -- both frozen and fresh. But they're more expensive than buying your vegetables not already cut up; you either pay for someone else to cut up your vegetables or you do it yourself.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
In other words, it costs in either money or time. Which was the original point, I believe.
 

---

Posted by muchafraid (# 10738) on :
 
Not to mention the fact that those frozen stir-fry meals also include frozen "sauces" that are loaded with sugar, salt, and preservatives.
 

---

Posted by xSx (# 7210) on :
 
In which case I misunderstood, sorry.

I was making a comparison between healthy and unheathly ready-meals. It is not true that it's cheaper to buy microwaveable meals than e.g. ready-chopped stir fry, and both take the same time to cook. It is not, I think, cheaper to buy pizza than ready-made salads.

If money is an issue I doubt you can really afford microwave meals of any sort, nor pizzas, etc.

ET reply to muchafraid - you can leave out the sauce, usually

[ 10. July 2006, 00:20: Message edited by: xSx ]
 

---

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
It does not cost much in money or time to chop up a carrot and a few other veggies. It takes me less than a minute with my blunt kitchen knife

(Dee will tell you that my kitchen is a chef's worst nightmare - not much kit and blunt knives).

Making a ball of hot water crust pastry only takes me four minutes of actual work.

Cooking good food does require knowhow though, both in making ingredients taste good (or rather, not ruining them in good Anglo-Saxon fashion by boiling them to death). This is where the French have got it right, and we have got it so wrong.

It certainly takes less time than walking to the chippy and back. I'm afraid I'm with Telepath, Fiddleback etc. all the way.

And eating healthily should never require "diets".
 

---

Posted by ananke (# 10059) on :
 
Once you find your strengths, cooking is easy.

For example: I cannot make pastry. Neither can my mother. But both of us make wonderful pasta. The skills for which transfer well to stir fry, stew and casseroles/bakes. All a matter of balancing the ingredients.

Which isn't to say I'm not fat, or that I'm well off. I've got a great job, as does my partner and neither of our jobs require unkind hours (mostly). I also have the 'luxury' of a partner who is actually a partner and will cook a couple of times a week.

If I'd just finished a 12 hour shift on my feet, had come home to hungry children and a partner who had also done a 12 hour shift, I wouldn't be as keen to cook. Even the ten minutes of prep it takes for my favourite recipes would seem too much.
 

---

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
If you're too busy to cook (as I frequently am during the week) the simple answer is to cook food in advance, ie, on the weekend, and freeze it. All that is required is a bit of forward planning.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I think I eat healthily; the trouble is I eat too bloody much - my appetite doesn't seem to have an 'off' switch and those two little words, "I'm full", don't seem to hit the front of my brain. It probably stems, like most people's I suspect, from all this "Think of the starving children in Poland*/ Biafra*/ Ethiopia*" mantra we were raised on. Plus I do like a little tipple or three with my meal (as do the French and Italians and, as has been pointed out, they're not lard-arses, so why am I?).

OK, that's the problem, at least for me. Fiddleback and Co, when you're not channelling Marjorie Dawes or thinking [Tom Baker voice]"Personally I think all fat people should be shot, lazy f***ers"[/Tom Baker voice]**, what should we do?

* Delete according to when you were born.

**Acknowledgements/ apologies etc to Messrs Lucas and Walliams

[ 10. July 2006, 08:25: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Err.. I dunno - how about serving yourself with however much your brain rather than your body reckons you need?

Or if that doesn't work, making sure you don't have junk food such as biscuits and crisps around the house (we don't because Mrs Cod succumbs to Irresistible Impulses).

Or if that's no good, eat extra and find a way of burning it off in exercise.

Or if that's no good, ten Hail Marys, ten Pater Nosters and ten strokes of the Cat I suppose.
 

---

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:


OK, that's the problem, at least for me. Fiddleback and Co, when you're not channelling Marjorie Dawes or thinking [Tom Baker voice]"Personally I think all fat people should be shot, lazy f***ers"[/Tom Baker voice]**, what should we do?

---

quote:

---

French and Italians [aren't] lard-arses, so why am I?

---

quote:

---

the trouble is I eat too bloody much

---

I don't wish to be presumptuous, but I can see a connection here

At your next meal, try putting just a little less on your plate than you think will satisfy you.

Before your meal, turn off the TV (if it was on in the first place).

I know you would never start eating without waiting for everyone else at the table to be served, you paragon of decorum, you. Nevertheless, don't break this most excellent habit.

If you have a rest of the household, eat your meals with them wherever possible.

In between bites, put your knife and fork down.

If you're still hungry after you finish everything on your plate, stop and wait for a few minutes before taking another helping. You may find that you don't want it so much after all.

If you cease to be hungry before you finish everything on your plate, stop eating. Proxy eating on behalf of an impoverished country is a very inefficient form of aid.

Over time, your shopping lists and recipe sizes will adjust to fit your decreased appetite, so you'll have less of an issue with food wastage. And in any event, unwanted food is just as wasted if you use your body as a dustbin instead of the kitchen pedal bin.

Now, try your best not to eat anything until the next meal. If you're really really ravenous, to the extent that you are visualizing your coworkers on platters with apples in their mouths, eat a little snack. Something lovely, like a group of grapes, a handful of walnuts, and a nibble of blue cheese. Or some almonds would be nice. Or, how about one square of 70% proof chocolate? Mmmmm.

If you're not really really ravenous, just go with the feeling of hunger. You will really enjoy your next meal.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I suppose I should qualify the 'eat too much' bit: it's only really in the context of when Mrs Black leaves something on her plate (particularly if I've prepared the meal), I have this insatiable urge to finish off what she's left rather than throw it away and 'waste' it. However, I accept your point about my body being as much of a dustbin as the real thing; never really thought about it in that way, so that point may well be helpful...

[ 10. July 2006, 09:55: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I can certainly buy an uncooked chicken and roast it at home cheaper than I can buy an already roasted chicken at the grocery store.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
The local shop in sink estate is likely to sell white bread, tins of baked beans, chocolate, pasties, cheese, pizza, crisps, jam and, um, not much else at all.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Don't do a weekly shop in Sainsburys or Tescos, but buy what you need every day locally.

---

It is always so interesting, is it not, to have a glimpse into exotic lifestyles?

Someone who has local, well-stocked shops and time, during the working day, to visit them. Time, even, to then adjourn to his home and dispose of his purchases - as opposed to, say, having to leave fresh meat, or fish, or milk, or yoghurt, or butter, or lettuce under a desk in a hot and busy office for 3 or 4 hours - preparatory to taking them on a crowded bus or train for perhaps a further hour. And it's not as if he has to carry a briefcase or a laptop at the same time, since he can single-thread domestic and work life.

Fascinating. But nothing like real life.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
If you think, Fiddleback, that people on the dole can afford to shop at Sainsburies or Tescos then

Or even, for that matter, families with but a single (minimum) wage can afford to shop there.

You remind me of that 80's Tory MP who thought the dole was a life of luxury, and then agreed to try for a month, and then said publically that the dole was not enough to live on, and really that it was impossible to even survive on it for more than a very short time without getting into debt....

[ 10. July 2006, 10:33: Message edited by: Papio ]
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
...so quite what my excuse is (middle class, professional, car, wife working part-time, living in middle-class area with Tescos (x2 + Tescos Express), Sainsbury's (x2), Co-op supermarket all within 15 minutes' drive plusfresh fruit and veg store within 10 minutes walk, prepare own meals (no ready-meals here!) etc) I don't know...

[oh, and a butchers and another greengrocer w/in 5 minutes' drive/ 20 minutes' walk ]

[ 10. July 2006, 10:42: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...so quite what my excuse is (middle class, professional, car, wife working part-time, living in middle-class area with Tescos (x2 + Tescos Express), Sainsbury's (x2), Co-op supermarket all within 15 minutes' drive plusfresh fruit and veg store within 10 minutes walk, prepare own meals (no ready-meals here!) etc) I don't know...

---

Yep. You, like me, have no excuse whatsoever. We're just very, very bad people.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Well, we do have it all handed to us on a plate, don't we.

(I'll get me coat.)
 

---

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Blimey, if there's anywhere cheaper in the UK than Tesco things have changed in the five years since I left.

If one can't make time to do one decent weekly shop, then I suppose one needs to prioritise one's time a bit better.

As for Drumchapel and the like, most people don't live in places like that (although I feel nothing but pity for those that do). Comparing the majority of people who have reasonably decent access to shops to the French aristocracy of the eighteenth century seems a bit much to me.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Blimey, if there's anywhere cheaper in the UK than Tesco things have changed in the five years since I left.

---

Nettos, Liddls, KwikSave, need i go on?

The trouble is that such stores do not sell a lot of fruit and veg, except in cans which have been pumped ful of sugar and/or salt and also loads of e-numbers.
 

---

Posted by Cosmo (# 117) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
If you think, Fiddleback, that people on the dole can afford to shop at Sainsburies or Tescos then

Or even, for that matter, families with but a single (minimum) wage can afford to shop there.

---

And yet, if those families on the dole or on low incomes round Cosmoville are to be regarded as in anyway normative (which is what the market research companies think), they seem to be able to afford to eat every meal from a take-away pizza place or the KFC or McDonalds or the Indian/Chinese takeaways or the remarkably expensive readymeals from the convienience stores.

It is much cheaper to buy decent food day by day
from a butcher, fishmonger and greengrocer, especially if one lives on one's own. And even if one lives in a town without these necessary places then it is still cheaper to buy from Tesco's or Sainsbury's than from convienience shops and takeaways.

People have to learn to buy food in sensible quantities, how to use all the food that they buy rather than throwing half of it away, to buy food that it in season which is cheaper and to find cheaper cuts of meat and fish which are still very tasty and nourishing.

Get an allotment and grow your own vegetables. Bake your own bread rather than eat bits of plastic. Never allow children to graze from the fridge or eat alone in their room. Yes, it takes time and it takes work. But to say that it's impossible to eat cheaply and well is just plain wrong.

Cosmo
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Oh whatever, they are all loaded aren't they?


 

---

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Blimey, if there's anywhere cheaper in the UK than Tesco things have changed in the five years since I left.

---

Nettos, Liddls, KwikSave, need i go on?

The trouble is that such stores do not sell a lot of fruit and veg, except in cans which have been pumped ful of sugar and/or salt and also loads of e-numbers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:

As for Drumchapel and the like, most people don't live in places like that (although I feel nothing but pity for those that do).

---

quote:

---

Comparing the majority of people who have reasonably decent access to shops to the French aristocracy of the eighteenth century seems a bit much to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
the people Papio and FB are referring to won't know what to do with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
It also occurs to me that people who berate others for being fat tend to be people with extremely high metabolisms, and large amounts of self-righteousness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeaceFeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
It also occurs to me that people who berate others for being fat tend to be people with extremely high metabolisms, and large amounts of self-righteousness.

---

Guilty! I suppose I can admit to being self-righteous...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
You've got to be pretty loaded to live off fish suppers and Irn Bru / Tennants in my opinion.

---

And actually, just to be difficult, I don't think that's true. A fish supper is, what, £2.50, £3.00? And around here that buys you enough chips to sink a battleship, two people could quite easily share it for their dinner. And cheapo Xtra Strength lager is... well, I'll check when I walk along to the shop but it's certainly cheap.

If that was truly all you were eating and drinking (and there are one or two characters round here that might well be) it would be pretty economical. Until you died, obviously.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Cod - i apologise, but what Rat said.
 

---

Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
If you think, Fiddleback, that people on the dole can afford to shop at Sainsburies or Tescos then

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Genie:
And the cheap cuts or meat are the fatty ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Genie:
And the cheap cuts or meat are the fatty ones.

---

There's a simple solution to that problem -- don't eat meat.

---

That is the worst advice I've ever heard. Meat is an absolutely vital ingredient in any diet.

Well, that's my story and I'm, sticking to it.
 

---

Posted by Genie (# 3282) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Genie:
And the cheap cuts or meat are the fatty ones.

---

There's a simple solution to that problem -- don't eat meat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Genie:
Cheese is even more fatty, and the other half doesn't like nuts or tofu and thinks that chickpeas and lentils are for sissies. There's no much alternative if you're looking for protein.

---

If you want to eat meat ( or you partner does ) that's between you and your conscience. But to claim that there is no healthy alternative is simply incorrect.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
On the "not eating meat point", I have a somewhat cautionary tale, which ties in with the comment someone made on this thread about 100 years ago that the reason we like fat and sugar is that historically we only had access to them rarely: in the mid 80s when I was a teenager, mum decided we were all going to be vegetarian. As she was the only one in the house who cooked at that time she got her way. But yours truly couldn't quite give up his meat craving (and there was probably a sound biological reason for that as I was going through a growth spurt), which manifested itself in smuggling in packets of pork scratchings. The trouble is, ever since then and despite reverting to being an open carnivore a few years later, I still have something of an addiction for the horrible pig's toenails and, now I'm eating 'normal' meat ono a regular basis, they're just plain bad for me.
 

---

Posted by professor kirke (# 9037) on :
 
Here's a thought...

What if some folks don't mind being overweight? What if being overweight is less of an evil than the skill, time, energy, planning, sacrifice it would take to become thin for some?

This argument started because Fiddleback claimed that laughter and mockery is a good way to get fat people to change. Sure, it's possible to eat well for cheap, especially if your lifestyle already easily accommodates such practices, and especially if you have a high metabolism and come from a family of thin people who all made great choices about their weight, etc. It's true, people who are 300 pounds and up can lose weight if they really put their minds to it.

My concern is what damn business is it of yours to tell anyone else how they should handle their weight? The arrogance of some of the attitudes on this thread sicken me. "Oh well I can find this food for cheap here and if you can't find the time to do this or that then you need to straighten your priorities." How the hell do you (the general you, of course) know what my priorities are?

No, people ridicule other people because it's self-serving. Fit people may not struggle with their weight, but they struggle in other areas. It's far easier to forget about those weak parts when they're having a good laugh at the "fatties" across the way. "Yeah, I may have problems, but at least I'm not fat."

No, maybe not fat, but incredibly ugly.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
I'm overweight and don't mind it all. Sometimes I get more overweight (thanks to xmas and t-day)than I want to be and work to lose a pant size or two, but I find it rahter easy to maintain my current weight - which is more than doctors would say is healthy, I imagine. But I'm not self-conscious about it and until some NASA scientists complain that I am throwing off the orbital path of the Earth, I think I'll continue to happily fill my 44/46s.
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
It is my opinion that nobody should smoke. Smoking kills and is unproductive. It stinks and colors teeth a sick shade of yellow. I speak from past experience as an ex-smoker who smoked for over 13 years before I quit. If I can quit, obviously, people who can not quit choose not too out of sheer laziness. Smoking kills faster and in a more effective manner than being too fat. Studies show it causes more blockage faster which in turn causes heart attacks.

It is especially a bad example for a clergy person to smoke since they are encouraging their flock that this is ok, by example...of somebody who is too lazy to quit smoking, slowly killing themselves. Kind of selfish.
 

---

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
If one can't make time to do one decent weekly shop, then I suppose one needs to prioritise one's time a bit better.

---

That may be true, but if you don't know what another person actually does with their time, it is presumptuous beyond words.

Not so many years ago, I was a single mom with four kids, including an infant. I had a full-time job. On a typical day, I got up at 5:30, got my shower, got the kids up at 6, got breakfast for them, fed the baby while they were eating, took school-aged kids to school, baby to daycare, went to work. Nine hours later, I picked baby up from daycare, then picked school-aged kids up from their after-school care. We left the house at 7 a.m., got home at 6:30. Dinner, baths, and bedtime rituals for the three odler kids had to be complete by 8:30, and I had a baby to care for as well. After kids were in bed, I had to do dishes and laundry, fix bottles and baby food for the next day, and do whatever else had to be done.

I did find a way to buy and prepare healthy food for us (including preparing baby food from scratch). But in amongst all that other stuff, I did not sit down and go over my kids' homework with them. The after-school program they went to had a homework room, and the kids were supposed to do their homework there. If they didn't, it didn't get done.

And for Eldest Son, it often didn't get done. When I had a meeting with the school staff to talk about the difficulties he was having at school, the guidance counselor said I should be going over his homework with him every night, making sure it was properly completed, that he had followed the teachers' instructions to the letter, etc., etc. I told her I couldn't do that, that there was simply not time in the evenings to do it. She looked at me condescendingly and told me I needed to get my priorities in order.

As far as I was concerned, my priorities were in order. There was only so much time in a day, and keeping my kids clean, well fed, and well rested were more important to me than going over their homework. There really wasn't time for everything. And if, for example, I also had to look after an elderly relative -- then something would have had to give up something else -- something else that was indeed important, but not as important as the other things. Cooking from scratch probably would have been it.

It's quite true that someone else might have prioritized things in a different way -- they might have thought it was more important to check a child's homework than to get the child to bed on time. Someone else might decide that helping their children with their homework is more important than doing a weekly shopping trip and preparing meals from scratch. Buying fast-food burgers on the way home would likely have freed up enough time to have allowed me to do that. But I thought decent family dinners were more important. Maybe I was right, maybe not.

But the guidance counselor was wrong to think she could set my priorities for me. And you are wrong to think you can set priorities for other people as well.

Maybe some people can't fit in a decent weekly shop because they're lazy, or spend too much time watching TV or messing around online or out with their friends. But others honestly have more important things to do.
 

---

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
Thank you, Josephine. OliviaG
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
Thank you, Josephine. OliviaG

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
It is especially a bad example for a clergy person to smoke since they are encouraging their flock that this is ok, by example...of somebody who is too lazy to quit smoking, slowly killing themselves. Kind of selfish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
It is especially a bad example for a clergy person to smoke since they are encouraging their flock that this is ok, by example...of somebody who is too lazy to quit smoking, slowly killing themselves. Kind of selfish.

---

I understand that the Pope smokes.

And Thomas Aquinas was very fat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duck:
[X-posted - reply to Genie]
If a vegan diet is nutritionally inadequate for you, you'd better be able to convince me you have a solid medical condition that makes it so, 'cos it keeps me going on some intense training and there's plenty of world-class vegan athletes around.

---

quote:

---

Evidence from a few large cohort studies suggests that vegetarians have lower overall mortality ratios than the general population, but this is not the case when vegetarians are compared with similar non-vegetarian groups who follow a health-conscious lifestyle.
Following a vegetarian diet does not automatically equate to being healthier; vegetarians and meat-eaters alike need to be mindful of making appropriate dietary and lifestyle choices.

(emphasis mine)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Being fat is a sin, and those who are without sin are the only ones in a position to laugh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
This is an utterly fascinating thread because of the bizarre attitudes that people are demonstrating. Quite a lot of posters clearly despise fat people, which astonishes me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Being fat is a sin, and those who are without sin are the only ones in a position to laugh.

---

I'm confused. Why is being fat a sin? I thought gluttony was the food-related sin? And isn't gluttony a love for food over and above a love for God? Maybe I am mistaken ...

---

quote:

---

To call being fat a sin would actually be to downgrade it - just a sin, just like everyone has. The views of many on this thread is that being fat is worse than a sin: it is a scandal, something that forfeits the requirement that the rest of us should make the effort to understand or show compassion. People seem to be saying that fat people are bad in a way that they are not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duck:
Non-exercisers will feel threatened by you, regardless of your own behaviour.

---

Dream on.
 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
I maintain that it is possible to discuss the attitudes of society towards fat people and towards diet without the following:

whether Fiddleback is setting a bad example by smoking, comments about "dietism" (dreadful neologism and a near Godwin's Law reference too) and any post involving multiple use of .

All of this is getting inappropriately personal.
If you want that kind of fight then take it to Hell, please.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Duo,

May I ask you, then, in your capacity as host, to also rule on the vile and numerous comments by Fiddleback and others about "fatties", "slobs', etc.? That's what provoked the comparison to smoking.


Thanks!
 

---

Posted by A.F. Steve (# 9057) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duck:
[X-posted - reply to Genie]

Vegan food for one costs me around £15 a week, maybe £20 with treats like fair-trade choc & or fair-trade dried mango - & that's with mostly organic fruit & veg, as much fair-trade stuff as i can conveniently buy locally (mostly dried fruit for snacks) & not being totally obsessive about cheap everything - if i'm really paying attention to cost then £10/week isn't too difficult.

I mostly buy from a local vegbox delivery scheme, the local Co-op corner shop, spices & dried beans & nuts from Asian-owned grocery shop (very useful for cheap staples), and maybe once a month trip to large supermarket (bringing home what i can carry on a bicycle), and the odd trip to the veggie 'wholefood' shop on the other side of town for hard-to-find stuff. This isn't a 'boring uber-healthy' diet either - i need some energy-dense food like crisps & sweets to keep calorie intake up during hard training.

Without buying expensive animal protein i can afford a wide range of veggies & carbs & still have an inexpensive, nutritionally-balanced diet. If a vegan diet is nutritionally inadequate for you, you'd better be able to convince me you have a solid medical condition that makes it so, 'cos it keeps me going on some intense training and there's plenty of world-class vegan athletes around. If you just don't like eating beans, i'll reluctantly concede that that's your choice - but please don't try to claim that meat's anything but an unnecessary luxury.

---

quote:

---

My concern is what damn business is it of yours to tell anyone else how they should handle their weight?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And if anyone else tells me I have my priorities wrong, I will kill them. With my bare hands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

And it strikes me that fatness/thinness is also a cultural thing. In some parts of the world, being fat is considered a sign of prosperity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duck:
Non-exercisers will feel threatened by you, regardless of your own behaviour.

quote:

---

Dream on.

---

---

quote:

---

Sport = ritual humiliation, getting jeered at by stupid jocks who couldn't pass a proper exam if their lives depended on it, feeling as though you have the worlds worst hangover, getting called a poofter and being beaten up in the shower room. Sweating a lot.

The Gym = largely the same as above, but you pay an obscene amount of money for the privelledge.

---

quote:

---

quote:Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
Newman's Own - you are most welcome to come down to my local running club track and see all the kids there from the local sink estate who are learning self confidence,

Whoa. I only ever learnt how shit I was at anything physical down on the running track? Self confidence? It shattered what I had.

quote:teamwork

Yes, I'll grant you that. One kid would hold me down in the showers whilst the other kicked my head in.

quote:friendship

Yes indeed; knocking the "weeds" around is so friendly.

quote:a healthy lifestyle

I'm not sure that our national sports obsession is healthy, not socially or mentally, at any rate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
We are subjected to a lot of 'healthy' advice. The effect is not so much on behaviour, but on subconscious attitude - like having a horror of sin (well, of sins you don't think you commit).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by migo:
If I'm paying taxes that pay for the medical bills they incurr due to their obesity, it damn well is my business.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Duo,

May I ask you, then, in your capacity as host, to also rule on the vile and numerous comments by Fiddleback and others about "fatties", "slobs', etc.? That's what provoked the comparison to smoking.


Thanks!

---

• Take it to the Styx
• Take it to Hell; or
• Shrug the "fattie" comments off, with an air of insouciance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duck:

But just because i enjoy running, & am the sort of shape that tends to go along with that, some people don't seem to have a problem with calling me 'skinny', a 'jock', lumping me in with anyone who bullied them at school, or trotting out all the usual anti-intellectual stereotypes.
All i actually want is to get on with my hobby in peace, and let other people do the same, without anyone hassling me about it - but unfortunately too many non-sporting people seem to assume i'm going to judge them, and get their retaliation in first.

---

It's a testament to my conditioning that I simply can't hear skinny as anything but a compliment! However, you are right of course, you should be able to be who you are without being subject to unfair assumptions. As should we all.

migo: The issue of health is a red herring I'm sure. Firenze, Gumby and Matt have said what I'd have wanted to. In addition I think our perception of overweight has become so skewed that it no longer bears any relation to health. To be anecdotal, I'm 37 and a UK size 14 on the bottom, 16 on top - that is well within the range of normal. No doctor has ever raised my weight as a problem, the only time it was mentioned was to warn me against the very low calorie diet I was following at the time. Yet shop assistants regularly feel entitled to be rude to me because of my 'outsize' shape, and when I go out on my bike it is a regular occurence for someone to comment out loud on the size of my arse, call me a fat c*nt, or otherwise subject me to abuse.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with concern about taxes (or if it does these people have a very unrealistic view of what level of overweight is likely to trouble the NHS)!
 

---

Posted by Telepath (# 3534) on :
 
People basically want to be flattered.

We all struggle with things - we all sin, if you will.

Fat people (appear to) embody this struggle with sin.

Therefore, fat people make great scapegoats.

Thinner people feel flattered when standing next to a fat person.

If a fat person gets thinner, or a klutz gets good at sports, or you get good at something that you previously received moral condemnation for being bad at...

That is not very flattering to others.

The people who were previously condemning you can't accuse you of the same thing. Worse, your newfound ability to do X may actually highlight the fact that your accusers haven't actually been doing X themselves - they've just been designating you as the non-X-doer of the group, and having a free ride on your supposed X-related delinquency. Now that you visibly are doing X, you're ruining their whole racket!

They'd better accuse you of being... uh... a self-righteous paragon! Yeah, that sounds good. A self-righteous paragon.

Never mind that you thought you'd please them with all your diligent X-doing.

Meanwhile, all the people who used to be your peer group look down on you too. You Uncle Tom! Obviously you only did it to make them look bad!

People accused you so that they could feel flattered. You changed your ways to gain your fair share of flattery. Now you're not flattering anybody! OMG, there's nowhere to go!

Normally, at this point, I'd close with a subtle yet thought-provoking witticism that suggests that there's more to life than maximising my own opportunities to be flattered. But who am I kidding? It's not like I even believe that myself.
 

---

Posted by Nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Duo,

May I ask you, then, in your capacity as host, to also rule on the vile and numerous comments by Fiddleback and others about "fatties", "slobs', etc.? That's what provoked the comparison to smoking.


Thanks!

---

As I see it, Golden Key, you have three choices:

• Take it to the Styx
• Take it to Hell; or
• Shrug the "fattie" comments off, with an air of insouciance.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host

---

I make one tongue-in-cheek reference to "dietism", fiddleback makes a career of insulting people on this thread -with the kind of insults I haven't heard since grade school. Yet my 'dietism" is worth the invocation of Godwin, and your advice to people offended by him/it is "like it or lump it"??

Fiddleback must be a contributor to the organ fund also. How much does it cost to get the "immunity from the hosts" badge?
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Er...matter for the Styx, NP?
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
ADMIN MODE

Nonpropheteer, if you want some shore leave, just make another remark like that last one. Otherwise, a review of Commandment 6 is in order.

For everyone, if you don't like what someone posts here, you can debate the point with them, call them to Hell, or you can put on your big girl panties and ignore the person.

If you think the hosts are not handling the thread properly, you can PM a host, start a thread in the Styx, or (once again) you can pull up those big girl panties and get on with your life.

Duo has warned you all about getting overly personal. Keep on ignoring her and I'll be back with more than a warning.

Scot
Member Admin
 

---

Posted by Anonymous Lurker Person (# 11642) on :
 
I have been lurking on SOF for quite some time, and I finally feel I need to register and say something in response to this particular thread, which really touched a nerve for me.

I am shocked how readily some people will judge others, without knowing what their story is and what is going on inside them.

I am fat. My BMI is 35.4, which is considered obese. The primary reason for this is that I have binge eating disorder. This disorder is probably more common than you think, because people are ashamed and do not talk about it.

For more information on binge eating disorder, see this page:
http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/binge.htm
Christopher Fairburn has also written some very good books on the subject.

Let me also tell you that what started it for me was dieting. I was on a diet and was highly successful, losing one third of my body weight. Then I started binge eating, eating large amounts of food during out-of-control episodes. Usually these were the precise foods I had been trying to avoid. The trigger for a binge was often breaking one of the rules I had set for myself, as people with binge eating disorder are usually characterized by black-and-white thinking. Then I started binge eating in response to negative emotions. After each binge I would try to be more strict with my eating in order not to gain any weight back. But eventually I couldn’t do it anymore, especially when I started to suffer from severe depression, and now I have gained back all the weight I lose and then some.

I was treated as an outpatient at a psychiatric hospital, but now I am starting to relapse a bit.

If you don’t know what it’s like, please don’t judge. I do not choose to be fat. Do you know what it’s like to hate your body every time you see it? Do you know what it’s like to have to buy your clothes in a special shop? Do you know what it’s like to have strangers make personal comments about your appearance? Do you know what it’s like to know that your chances of jobs or boyfriends are reduced? Do you know what it’s like to have people analyze the contents of your grocery cart, or to wonder why you’re eating what you’re eating? Do you know what it’s like to feel guilty over everything you eat? Do you really think I would choose this?
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 


...and welcome to the Ship.
 

---

Posted by Duck (# 10181) on :
 
Originally posted by Rat:

quote:

---

It's a testament to my conditioning that I simply can't hear skinny as anything but a compliment! However, you are right of course, you should be able to be who you are without being subject to unfair assumptions. As should we all.

---

It's not so much that i mind exactly what people call me, more that they feel able to talk about what i look like. I don't think it's terribly polite to comment on someone's appearance, even as a compliment - if someone said 'you've got lovely skin', i'd be rather annoyed that they found this more interesting than my cake-baking skills / 10k time / recall of really bad children's jokes / anything else i do of mutual interest, rather than what i just happen to look like through genetics, chance, or an unimportant side-effect of another hobby. It's really rather unpleasant being the subject of jealousy. Going from being an overweight, sedentary teenager to a sports-enthusiast young adult hasn't actually changed who i am how i think, or how i see the world much - but it has changed how people see me, and frustratingly enough then my weight's still an issue, just usually for different people.
 

---

Posted by Duck (# 10181) on :
 
sorry, X-post - but Anonymous Lurker Person, , & welcome.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Anonymous Lurker Person,

Welcome aboard and that's a brave thoughtful first post which bodes well.

There is a lot of support around the Ship for people with just about any problem (see All Saints) and we aren't all horrid and judgemental, not all the time, but Purgatory is a pretty robust place. If people do get out of order then the Hosts and Admin's do step in but they aren't moderators so anything can and does get posted.

Hope you enjoy yourself here.

[edit: x-p]

[ 11. July 2006, 14:40: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anonymous Lurker Person:
Do you really think I would choose this?

---

I very much doubt that anyone who actually thinks would would think that......

Welcome to the ship. That was one of the best first posts I have seen in a long time.
 

---

Posted by muchafraid (# 10738) on :
 
Originally posted by Duck:

quote:

---

It's really rather unpleasant being the subject of jealousy. Going from being an overweight, sedentary teenager to a sports-enthusiast young adult hasn't actually changed who i am how i think, or how i see the world much - but it has changed how people see me, and frustratingly enough then my weight's still an issue, just usually for different people.

---

I could be terribly mistaken, and if so I'm sorry, but this seems like a rather arrogant thing to say. I'm sure that our new friend Anon (as well as myself) would argue that if you're not the subject of people's cruely you should consider yourself lucky. ESPECIALLY if you yourself had to deal with being overweight as a child.

Can't we just agree that people just shouldn't judge? Whether they're poking at your imperfections, or focusing on nothing BUT your perfections - they just shouldn't do it at all. I don't think we need to now start making comparisons of how being drowned in compliments about our physical appearance is equally as annoying.
 

---

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :
 
Anonymous lurker person, you're spot on,



it seems there's now a hellthread devoted to Fiddleback people.
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
I apologize Duo S. I am taking my remarks to hell now, the proper place for them. I should not have push the boundries in purg.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
I apologize Duo S. I am taking my remarks to hell now, the proper place for them. I should not have push the boundries in purg.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by muchafraid:
<big snip>
Can't we just agree that people just shouldn't judge?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duck:

quote:

It's really rather unpleasant being the subject of jealousy. Going from being an overweight, sedentary teenager to a sports-enthusiast young adult hasn't actually changed who i am how i think, or how i see the world much - but it has changed how people see me, and frustratingly enough then my weight's still an issue, just usually for different people.


I could be terribly mistaken, and if so I'm sorry, but this seems like a rather arrogant thing to say. I'm sure that our new friend Anon (as well as myself) would argue that if you're not the subject of people's cruely you should consider yourself lucky. ESPECIALLY if you yourself had to deal with being overweight as a child.

Can't we just agree that people just shouldn't judge? Whether they're poking at your imperfections, or focusing on nothing BUT your perfections - they just shouldn't do it at all. I don't think we need to now start making comparisons of how being drowned in compliments about our physical appearance is equally as annoying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:
I thought of this thread when I read this in the guardian today

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:
I thought of this thread when I read this in the guardian today

---

That article also brings out a subtext to this whole discussion: an assumption so large it is unnoticed - that it is a discussion not about fat people, but overwhelmingly about fat women.

Men can be 'stocky', 'chunky', 'well-built', 'heavy', 'broad' - but women are only and always 'fat'.

Who was, further up the thread, was advocating mockery? I would like to see them with that 15st guy over there in the England T-shirt.

---

I liked the article. It was very inforamtive. But I do have a bone to pick with this statement...

When fat people experience oppression, we experience it alone and our first reaction is not to fight back, our reaction is to give money to fat-hate industries (Weight Watchers, stomach amputation, etc). Instead of demanding self-respect, we seek approval from our oppressors.'

I do not consider Weight Watchers or stomach stapling to be "fat-hate industries". I think WW has an awesome plan for eating. I myself am too lazy to follow it, so I am losing weight instead on NutraSystem (space food is my joy these days).
Stomach stapling is severe but sometimes taken as a step to save somebody's life (somebody that is extremely obsease).

WW has 2 plans, one is eating unprocessed food mainly (the CORE plan). the other is eating from a point system.

NutraSystem (like Jenny Craig and others) is pre-pkgd food. You just eat and run. As I work a lot of hours and do charity work, plus church activities and such, I don't focus on cooking right now. It is easier to eat a sensible meal that is pre-pkgd for me most days and working for the most part. When the weight is gone, the challege as always will be to keep it off.



[eta: It is nice to have a regular discussion now. Just thinking that outloud so I had to share that. thx.]

[ 11. July 2006, 20:00: Message edited by: duchess ]
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
When I saw Firenze had posted, I hoped that it was to point out (correcting Genie) that the cheap cuts of meat are the tough ones, not the fat ones.

---

Ah, my role in life. Cookery tips.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Sorry about that, Firenze.

My impression of WeightWatchers is that it is definitely an industry, and that it exists to sell its own ridiculous cakes and processed foods to the poor folk who belong to it. WW rent our church hall once a week. The people who come invariably drive, and park as close to the church as possible (usually in the churchyard). They have the expression of people about to pass their children through the fire to Moloch as they go into be weighed, and before going in they do their very best to evacuate their bowels and bladders completely. They depart clutching an armload of WW chocolate biscuits. In other words, with WW you too can continue to be fat while gradually going broke.

[ 11. July 2006, 20:31: Message edited by: Amos ]
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
It is a business and they do sell their own products. But for the most part, they are a healthy eating plan recommended by most doctors in the USA (and probably worldwide I would imagine). I did not care for most of their products while I was on it, but i did lose 20 lbs. approx of the 44 or so I have lost through the years on WW.

Good for those people taking charge of their lives and health..and willing to go through the accountability of being weighed each week...trying to make positive life change.

[eta: their candy bars have transfats in them but it is only a trace amount, so I did not get to eat them much plus sugar (due to my trying to limit sugar/transfats in my diet).]

[ 11. July 2006, 20:34: Message edited by: duchess ]
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Most doctors are keen for their patients to maintain a healthy weight by whatever means. If you read the adverts from the pharmaceutical industry in any US medical journal, the phrase 'US doctors recommend' will cause your skepticism alarm to activate. Bzzzzzzz! Who paid for your last vacation, Doc?

Eat less. Exercise more. Or grow a thicker skin. Personally, I love food, I'm a great cook, and I drive more than I walk. So if I ever want to fit into my Azzedine Alaias again, I've got to work at it.

(Re. the people who insist they consume only 600 calories a day and have body mass indices over 30; I am reminded of a former flatmate who believed that the calories of food she was not seen to eat didn't count. So she lived on lettuce and Wheatena and waxed fat on triple-stuffed Oreos which she bought by the case and hid under her bed.)
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
I am curious. How is Weight Watchers a bad program if it promotes sensible eating and working out? Which it does. *

Eating less and working out is indeed the key to weight loss. But we all have different ways to do that.

For me, I lose weight better and got my blood tests perfect (cholestrol, FSH, TSH etc) by eating less sugar and refine carbs. I watch my GI. So I am not afforded the luxury of just only eating less. It is an imperative to eat healthy.

Since our cultures do not always teach moderate sensible eating, it makes perfect sense to go to a place like Weight Watchers to learn to eat well. My coworker who is rather slim, works out all the time, a real Californian girl (stereotype, compliment in a nice way to her), went to Weight Watchers before just to some things about nutrician.

YMMV of course though.

*My skin is pretty tough. Except when it comes to teenage boys whispering about my fatness in Spanish slang behind my back during jail bible studies. I lost it there in jail and had to apologise (and got told "don't worry about it Miss Preacher Lady")

Adults though that I hardly know have little effect on my self-esteem these days. I am lucky to have people who love me regardless of my size in my life. My little niece for example throws her little arms around my neck no matter what I weigh.

[ 11. July 2006, 20:56: Message edited by: duchess ]
 

---

Posted by Jamac (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anonymous Lurker Person:
I wish to God I had never tried to lose weight in the first place. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:

I can tell her I love her and "size doesn't matter" as much as I like (no rude comments!) but she doesn't believe me? What do all you agony aunts have to say about that? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

I am curious. How is Weight Watchers a bad program if it promotes sensible eating and working out? Which it does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
The logic there, Migo, would seem to be to move towards a rationing of healthcare where the condition can be proven to be the result of choice on the part of the patient.

A good deal of the discussion on this thread has been about what constitutes 'choice': some saying Yes, you can choose to eat healthy, home-cooked food and/or exercise sufficiently to those pointing out that economically and socially such choices may be a lot more difficult for some that others.

---

quote:

---

So, firstly, you would have to establish that the condition related directly to choices by the patient (and wasn't, for example, a metabolic disorder), and that they could have done otherwise whatever their social or personal situation.

---

quote:

---

And then, of course, why stop at food? What about the droves turning up in casualty with injuries from drinking too much on a Saturday night? Never mind the ones who got into a car while intoxicated. And the smokers, of course. And those who engage in sports and injure themselves that way. And then the sufferers from RSI - did they have to take a job which involved continuous computer use? Couldn't they have done something else?

---

quote:

---

In other words, auditing everyone's life to see how much their present situation is their own fault, is likely to intrusive and highly judgmental - and to what end? Is it not easier to say that the NHS should be like the grace of God, available to all?

---

quote:

---

Close your eyes. Instead of trying to relax and clear your mind and do all the things you have learned to start a meditation, become aware of all the tensions in your body and words in your mind. Address those parts of yourself by saying, “I greet the Goddess: Thank you! I am in your service. Let us feed, for all things eat of each other.” Feel the floor with your hands and repeat the prayer. Feel your hair and address that part of yourself by saying, “I greet the Goddess: Thank you! I am in your service. Let us be in joy, for all things feed one another.” Be aware of your entire physical being, and repeat this second prayer. Focus on and be aware of the deep feeling that this meditation produces, and repeat the second prayer. Stretch. Enjoy the stretch. Use one of the prayers to address your food, your soap and the lights when you turn them on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leila:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jamac:


Perhaps she doesn't want to be the person you're happy with. perhaps she wants to be the person she's happy with (just a suggestion)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leila:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jamac:


Perhaps she doesn't want to be the person you're happy with. perhaps she wants to be the person she's happy with (just a suggestion)

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And if anyone else tells me I have my priorities wrong, I will kill them. With my bare hands.

---

Or you will just sit on them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
Coincidentally, I am currently reading the book, The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. You may have heard an interview with him recently on NPR, or seen an article in The Smithsonian. I did, anyway, and that's why I picked up the book.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by migo:
Death threats (even untargetted) are ok, but insults aren't? I didn't get that impression from the posting guidelines.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by migo:
Death threats (even untargetted) are ok, but insults aren't? I didn't get that impression from the posting guidelines.

---

migo - questions about posting guidelines and general Ship's business must be raised in the Styx - not on this thread.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Mertseger: Great post. Thank you.
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
I'm not particulary keen on WW, I agree very much with most of the points made by Telepath.

The good points are that WW can help give people who don't have it a basic grasp of nutrition, and all the measuring can help with portion control. One of the main ways food manufacturers mess with people's perceptions is documenting their products in unrealistic portions so they can be marketed as low calorie\low fat... as if anyone would ever chop the ready-made lasagne in half, or eat only a third of a packet of crisps. Figuring out points puts you wise to those tricks, as well as giving you a good idea of how much (e.g.) 50g of cereal actually is. The meetings may also play a social role for lonely people (though I'm not sure that friendships based on a shared interest in yo-yo dieting will always be the healthiest).

But I do think that the WW programme has the effect (intended or unintended) of encouraging people to eat unhealthy expensive processed foods. It's comparatively difficult and time consuming to work out the points value of a home-made meal, a ready-meal or processed product will already be listed in the book. Fast-food restaurants - whose products are nothing if not predictable - are listed in the points book, high-quality gourmet restaurants cooking good food using local fresh ingredients aren't.

The obsessive tracking and recording of points can get in the way of common sense. I've genuinely been away on business with a guy who explained that he couldn't come out for a good meal with the rest of the team, even if he had a salad, because that would mean eating an unknown quantity of points and ruin his journalling for the week. He had to go to Burger King, so he'd know what to write in his points diary and could plan the rest of his week's eating accordingly. I'd never have gone that far, but I can empathise - the points become the object of the exercise, the only indicator of how virtuous or useless you are.

The weigh-ins also focus on weight (duh!) in a way that isn't always helpful. Women especially can have wild weight fluctuations from week to week, and can be very demoralised if a week of perfect points ends up with a telling-off because they've gained a pound. And of course someone exercising more than usual may gain more in muscle than they've lost in fat over a couple of weeks, and be left feeling like a failure at weigh-in.

A lot depends on the leader, how much they understand and emphasise nutrition, whether they take into account health indicators other than simple weight, and whether they actually talk to members about their individual situation rather than just lauding the week's biggest loser. But I think it can be a less than healthy influence.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I have found WW's techniques to be helpful in the past - combined with gym visits, I managed to lose 9lbs over three months before my wedding (only to put most of them back on on honeymoon! )using their points techniques. But I should add that I didn't actually join; rather, I bought their recipe book and fairly rigidly adhered to their points system using it.
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
RE: ww - Ive steared clear of them and their like as the people who I know who have used tit tend to end up yo you dieting or putting it back on afterwards. Also it seems to me that it encourages all the focus to be on food/weight/fat and that can lead to a negative self image/ obsesive attitude to food instead of focusing on eitehr root causes or positive steps. I really dont like the weigh in idea either - the sense of guilt/ that self image and worth is attatched to a number etc.

On the other hand - i like this pre-packaged good for you food idea (aka duchess).... do we have the in the uk? is it vastly expensive?

I want to focus on good habits, healthy eating and positive exercise steps (rather than size/weight/calorie counting) but I must admit im not quite their yet either!!
 

---

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
As a diabetic I find WW food has too much sugar in it, (they may adjust for this with people who actually do their programme, I don't know) as well as being more expensive than alternatives.

I have the luxury of being time-rich so I prefer to cook most of my food from scratch, then I know what is in it. I realise other people may not be as fortunate.

Huia
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
A point I thought both Mertseger's and Josephine's post touched on, is how remote we are from 'natural' food.

Even the 'fresh' fruit and veg we buy may have been treated with pesticides, waxed, chilled, irradiated etc to inhibit or control the natural cycle of ripening and decaying. Drugs in the meat, heavy metal in the fish, and a whole chemistry lab in the processed stuff.

We can't go back to growing our own vegetables/slaughtering our own pig. Some of us can afford or have available the faux peasant of buying organic, or shopping at farmers' markets. But mostly it's about buying the products of industrial production.

[ 12. July 2006, 10:17: Message edited by: Firenze ]
 

---

Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on :
 
I was thinking about this thread a lot yesterday (whilst out on a jog - my time alone from the world when I can relax and think) and came to the view that the 'eat less, exercise more' mantra which many here are espousing, though some others feel it is easier said than done, or even doesn't work, is actually not necessarily right.

I felt that 'fewer calories in THAN calories out' was more accurate. In that an athlete will probably eat a lot more than the average person (trust me, I feed, sorry, am married to, one but it's ok as they still burn more (or the same number of) calories than they consume.

Thus in answer to those fatter people who say they eat very little, it's not necessarily that they're now on a startvation diet as has been posited here by some(ie. they've started to cut back so much that the body is storing calories it normally wouldn't), but that their maintenance calorific level has got very low. ie. they expend so little energy because they're not able, so the body needs to take in very little to simply maintain it's current state. (Obviously how they got to their current size may be due to a wide variety of reasons and over a long period of time or a long time ago).

Therefore, if they want to change, they either need to exercise more (which'll be very hard as they won't have much energy to do it due to the few calories they consume), or they should actually eat more to fuel the exercise. No easy answers unfortunately!
 

---

Posted by kaboodle (# 11563) on :
 
Has anyone seen the documentary "Diet Confidential"? It would seem that the rate of obesity in North America is due, in significant part, to lifestyle choices. Sitting watching TV, driving when you could walk, eating junkfood, not getting enough exercise.

Broke could be a result of spending tons of money on junkfood etc. so the answer to "Is it my fault I'm fat and broke?" is often at least partly "Yes." People need to realise that often there is more responsibility on their part for their predicament than they are willing to admit.

I know of a few where a properly tailored diet and exercise had a huge effect (lost 80lbs). I know a person at our College who last year was obese, and when I came back after the Summer holidays had lost most of the weight and looked terrific. Another story I heard was someone who lost 150lbs by dilligently getting up each morning and going swimming and eating healthily, so from these examples I would conclude that fault can lie with the person, because barring metabolic or genetic factors, there is much one can do.
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Slightly, but only slightly, to one side - do you notice how 'I lost #lbs' is a Testimony? X is wretched, oppressed, hopeless - then they Find The Way - there is striving, perserverance, trials - but ultimately Victory. They lose Y stones, and all the trumpets sound for them on the other side. For they are now of the Slimline Elect.

Stoater of a plot, Pilgrim's Progress, and still wearing well.
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma.:
...

On the other hand - i like this pre-packaged good for you food idea (aka duchess).... do we have the in the uk? is it vastly expensive? ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
I do hope someone from the UK can find something to peruse in pre-pkged diet food plans there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

The obsessive tracking and recording of points can get in the way of common sense. I've genuinely been away on business with a guy who explained that he couldn't come out for a good meal with the rest of the team, even if he had a salad, because that would mean eating an unknown quantity of points and ruin his journalling for the week. He had to go to Burger King, so he'd know what to write in his points diary and could plan the rest of his week's eating accordingly. I'd never have gone that far, but I can empathise - the points become the object of the exercise, the only indicator of how virtuous or useless you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
There's Slimfast. But that's an abomination against nature. I can't think of anything else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huia:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
There's Slimfast. But that's an abomination against nature. I can't think of anything else.

---

There's a product available in NZ with the same name that has bzp (which is used in party pills and I believe started life as an animal remedy) as its active ingredient.

There is also an organisation called "Slimfast" that uses blood tests to prescribe a diet for each person to follow. Customers have ongoing appointments with a "weightloss counsellor" for a weigh-in and advice on weightloss. It costs $880.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anonymous Lurker Person:
I added and recalculated calories many times a day, trying to decide whether I could allow myself a banana (105 calories) or whether I should restrict myself to half a white grapefruit (37 calories).

It was a horrible way to live.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ananke:
As far as exercise goes though, that's a place people really need to back off from judgement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
We should be happy with our bodies and ourselves as we are, if nothing else because loving our bodies is probably the best motivation to making some weight reduction when possible.

---

Actually, I am thinking loving food is probably the road to health and happiness.

Owing to a slight domestic crisis, I did not pack a lunch today, but instead picked up a prawn mayo sandwich and some fruit at Tescos. I didn't realise it was Specially Low Fat. It was vile. I have just eaten 2 chocolate hobnobs to obliterate the taste - and now realise they reason they don't taste nice either is the chocolate is so far from the 50%+ organic dark that I love.

Moral: A little of what you fancy does you good, and a lot of what you don't doesn't.
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Firenze, you get my first for that. I very very regularly try to convince people that many people's food problems (and I dont' just mean weight either) would be solved by better listening to their bodies. Certainly not everyone is able to follow the advice of their bodies and that wouldn't solve everyone's problems. However, I have had a few food issues myself and solved them by realizing that if I was craving cottage cheese, steak, hamburger and chese that maybe I needed to add more protein into my life. (At the time I was living with vegetarians but I didn't like tofu--needed to get over being a pickypicky or move.)
Similarly, I lost five pounds (wasn't really overweight, just not fit) by simply not eating when I wasn't hungry! Now obviously that won't work for everyone but it took me so long to realize I could just skip meals if I wasn't hungry etc.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
((((ALP))))
 

---

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
There's an interesting article in Slate today on the topic of obesity that includes some interesting additional causes for its increase in recent years. You may find the article here . FWIW

--Tom Clune

[ 13. July 2006, 18:29: Message edited by: tclune ]
 

---

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anonymous Lurker Person:
I added and recalculated calories many times a day, trying to decide whether I could allow myself a banana (105 calories) or whether I should restrict myself to half a white grapefruit (37 calories).

It was a horrible way to live.

---

I recognise what you are describing, I've gone through periods of obsessing like that. It is horrible. For me the focus on counting was always a way of avoiding other things, and feeling in control of at least one thing. I can only be thankful that for me those phases passed (by themselves, through no virtue on my part).

Thank you for your contribution on this thread, by the way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
as Firenze says, to love food. But by love, I mean a sort of respectful, loving thing. Not spending all day each day together. Appreciation, rather than love, perhaps.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by imagin8or:
If you're married, have lots of sex.
Now, don't reply, switch off the screen, turn off the TV, and make peace with God. Then, knees permitting, go for a half-hour walk and see how far you can go.

---

Wot if you're not married. Plus its midnight, freezing, dark and dangerous.
 

---

Posted by I_am_not_Job (# 3634) on :
 
Put on your favourite CD and get down and boogie. (quietly if you have neighbours and thin walls )
 

---

Posted by ananke (# 10059) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by imagin8or:

Being overweight is not ok. It's a health risk. It's a mind risk. It's a spiritual risk. You are still a person though, you are worth no less because of the extra material around you. Don't fall into either of the pits - feeling worthless because of your weight, or feeling that being fat is ok. You are ok, but your weight is not. So take ownership, take charge of it. Live as a child of God, not a slave to consumption and image. You are more important and worth far more than the magazines will tell you, more than people will think you're worth, and far more than you know yourself. So honour the God that made you worth so much by taking care of the body you have; you are worth too much to have all the problems of being too fat. You and God together can make it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pearalis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by imagin8or:
If you're married, have lots of sex.
Now, don't reply, switch off the screen, turn off the TV, and make peace with God. Then, knees permitting, go for a half-hour walk and see how far you can go.

---

Wot if you're not married. Plus its midnight, freezing, dark and dangerous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left at the Altar:

Excuses, excuses.

Whether it's extra-marital sex, or walking, at midnight, when it's dark and dangerous is the best time.

Just Do It.

---

But excuses are my thing ! You want to take away my thing !

Also I'm confused about how to have extra-marital sex. If I go for a walk at midnight and get assaulted by a married stranger does that count?

Didn't they get rid of Just Do It for the Swoosh? Like how Prince became The Artist Formally Known as Prince, then The Artist, then Mr Squiggle.

 

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pearalis:
Wot if you're not married. Plus its midnight, freezing, dark and dangerous.

---

Stay in bed and practice
 

---

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Take a cricket bat (or a baseball bat if from North America). Smash your television set with the bat repeatedly.

Take the remains outside, set light to them, and dance around in an energetic manner.

Do the same to your video recorder.

Computers are exempt, because I use one.
 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
Yesterday, as I wondered back from going swimming (prompted partly by sitting and reading through the first n pages of this thread), I decided to pop into the shop and bought myself a mars ice-cream kingsize. This made me realise that something that has not been brought up on this thread is the increase of `kingsize' and `big eat' options when it comes to snacks, so rather than eating 35g of crisps you get 50g (for example). That definitely seems to me to be a way in which food companies are encouraging us to eat more unhealthily.

Carys
 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
Ooops. At some point, I will learn the difference between wondering and wandering. I was doing the latter to get back from the swimming pool.

Carys
 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Carys, as an example in the other direction, the stoned adolescent who sits down to a half-gallon tub of ice cream has to satisfy her munchy-cravings these days with only 56 ounces, rather than the accustomed 64.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I'm trying to imagine the response most people would get from a request for more sex for the purposes of losing weight.

Marriage - where one acquires a personal exercise machine of the opposite sex.


 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Probbly why the local loose woman was often known as The Village Bicycle.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 


Want lots of cheese. Not allowed.
 

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm trying to imagine the response most people would get from a request for more sex for the purposes of losing weight.

---

quote:

---

There was only so much time in a day, and keeping my kids clean, well fed, and well rested were more important to me than going over their homework. There really wasn't time for everything. And if, for example, I also had to look after an elderly relative -- then something would have had to give up something else -- something else that was indeed important, but not as important as the other things. Cooking from scratch probably would have been it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
It is really very simple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
What is ten times more offensive than anything Fiddleback, Cosmo, or anyone else has said is that while a good third of the world frequently starves a much smaller part of it bemoans its obesity problem and cynically uses medical conditions in order to avoid the moral blame. Or alternatively, the "I am an island" argument that obesity is no-one's business but one's own. No, I am not making any comment on any particular individual, certainly not anyone who has posted on this thread because I assume people are honest, but taking a step back and looking at the issue on the level of society as a whole this clearly is what has happened. It is really very simple, we have too much and if we had a bit less we'd ironically be better off. Food is no exception.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by magdalenegospel:
The Malawi comment - that there aren't people with over-eating disorders in Malawi - is something of a red herring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
It is really very simple.

---

No, it isn't. This is something you, and Fiddleback, and Cosmo, just don't understand. It's not really simple. If it were really simple, then there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

---

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It is really very simple.

No, it isn't. This is something you, and Fiddleback, and Cosmo, just don't understand. It's not really simple. If it were really simple, then there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

---

quote:

---

I am growing so tired of the idea that everything would be just so wonderful if the entire world were poor and starving.

Oh, I forgot... we're all rich. Yet I wish that having things such as running water, food of some kind on the table, electricity, a better chance at a longer lifespan and good general health than our parents had, were things for which we could be grateful rather than guilty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Telepath:
It is really simple.

It's just not really easy, for many people.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Telepath:
It is really simple.

It's just not really easy, for many people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How hard is it to see that there are concrete REASONS for obesity that have nothing to do with individuals and everything to do with society/culture? Not to mention medicine?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by magdalenegospel:
Given that that sort of Soy is very common in cheap foods, it asks the question about whose fault is it that the metabolisms of individuals are slowly being screwed up, so that we struggle to eat the right amount of foods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
Just out of interest, the stuff I said earlier I remembered about cheap chicken was re-stated on daytime TV this week. A nutritionist was saying that you could no longer count on chicken to be a low fat, healthy meat, as cheap mass-produced chicken is actually very high fat due to the sedentery lives and unnatural diet of the chickens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
But people who lack the skills, knowledge or confidence to make up their baby food from scratch could easily be led to believe that in spending a more than manageable amount on prepackaged food they are doing the best for their baby by giving them food formulated by experts.

---

quote:

---

“It is everywhere. You don’t always realise where it crops up because you don’t look for it, so you can take in large quantities of HFCS and think you are eating healthily.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curious
...just remember that many of the sugars and fats are listed under long scientific names that mean nothing to the average consumer.

---

I read a label on a can of creamed corn which listed 'desiccated cane juice' as an ingredient. Cane sugar, anyone?

I haven't been able to find creamed corn without sugar for about thirty-five years. I have an excellent corn chowder recipe which tastes awful with added sugar.

Moo
 

---

Posted by Telepath (# 3534) on :
 
Damn straight, Curiosus.

People should be able to go to a shop and buy food on the default assumption that it contains food. They shouldn't have to have the analytical obsessiveness of, well, me, to find a freaking meal they can eat.

Oh, and. A while back I read something about big words like "fructose" being scary for people, and how it would be helpful to call it "fruit sugar" instead.

Of course, most people will assume "fruit sugar" is so much better for you than that nasty sugar sugar. You know, like honey is better because it's been puked up by one of Nature's Bees.

And what will they get? Most of the time, probably, the enormously fatogenic high-fructose corn syrup! Give it up for obfuscation! Go on, give it up!
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Seriously, even if you're not trying to lose weight the sugar thing is frustrating. I don't want sugar in my tomatoes, I don't want sugar in my chinese food, and I don't want sugar in my fish sauce!

Moo, by the way, one way to avoid canned corn, in case this helps, is to buy corn on the cob and then microwave it in waxed paper. This tastes good and works quite well for takign off the cob. That doesn't help the cream but I wager it's easier to add cream than subtract sugar these days.
 

---

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

I'm very much of the opinion that less, even very little, good quality meat is a better option than cheap meat.

---

quote:

---

Also posted by Rat:
A jar of cottage pie baby food on which sugar was the third top ingredient (below some sort of scary 'beef product' and reconstituted potato). Products marked 'suitable from 4 months' containing ingredients not recommended before 6 months or a year. One familiar product describing itself as 'nutritionally tailored to meet the needs of your growing baby' contained practically no nutritional value besides sugar. 'Fruit' foods with very little fruit, but an awful lot of flavourings.

---

We fell foul of this one too, actually. We bought some baby food that was recommended by Plunkett (NZ child help and advice institution originally popularised by the now infamous Truby King), then checked the label and lo and behold - milk powder, salt and sugar and all sorts of other shit. There aren't any laws against doing that sort of thing, I suspect manufacturers try and get round it all the time. It's damn difficult - that I am happy to admit, and I don't bother checking labels anymore - I just don't buy. Fortunately, the Codlet is now old enough to eat what we have - which means we hardly ever have salt now

(edited code)

[ 01. August 2006, 08:30: Message edited by: Cod ]
 

---

Posted by ananke (# 10059) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
There are also cheap cuts that are pretty nutritous that seem to have gone right off the radar screen - liver, kidney, heart, tongue. Of course, that does mean having access to a half-decent butcher.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curious
...just remember that many of the sugars and fats are listed under long scientific names that mean nothing to the average consumer.

---

I read a label on a can of creamed corn which listed 'desiccated cane juice' as an ingredient. Cane sugar, anyone?

I haven't been able to find creamed corn without sugar for about thirty-five years. I have an excellent corn chowder recipe which tastes awful with added sugar.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Two days ago I made a stock with a pig's trotter. The butcher gave it to me for nothing.

---

Whatever became of the other three?
Reminds me of the yarn (that I can't wholly recall)about the bloke whose pig had a wooden leg, the last line of which was, "Well, with a pig that good, you don't eat him all at once".
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:

Re: the baby food, Rat, I'm really shocked to hear that the commercial baby food you have has sugar added! I took a quick peek through the Gerber and Earth's Best baby foods I have here, and keeping in mind that I don't buy the ones labeled "fruit dessert", which would be expected to have sugar, I find that none of them has sugar added. The carrots contain "carrots, water".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
it troubles me that some obese people have started looking beyond their minds and mouths to the name on the packet for someone to blame and sue for their own lack of self control. Are we creating a society of helpless victims who will do anything EXCEPT look at their own behaviours?

---

quote:

---

One of Atkinson’s most memorable patients was Janet S., a bright, funny 25-year-old who weighed 348 pounds ... During the three months of presurgical study, the dietitian on the research team calculated how many calories it should take for a 5-foot-6-inch woman like Janet to maintain a weight of 348. They fed her exactly that many calories — no more, no less. She dutifully ate what she was told, and she gained 12 pounds in two weeks — almost a pound a day.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0